Apuzzo submits SCOTUS appeal in Paige case

A document has surfaced on the Internet which appears to be a petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court in the case of H. Brooke Paige v. James Condos, Vermont Secretary of State. In this case Paige, with some assistance from Mr. Apuzzo, argued that US Presidents must have US citizen parents. The lower court rejected that view, saying:

While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.

At this point, a search of the Supreme Court docket does not show the case, nor is there a case number on the petition document uploaded 7 hours ago. Nothing at Apuzzo’s blog yet. Paige writes on his Constitutional Reset blog that the petition was filed yesterday (March 6).

“JURISDICTION
The final opinion and judgment of the Vermont
Supreme Court was entered on October 18, 2013. App. B,
3a. Petitioner ﬁ led with that Court on November 15, 2013,
a motion for re-argument, which that Court denied on
December 6, 2013. App. A, 1a. This petition is ﬁ led within
90 days of that date. Rule 13.1. This Court’s jurisdiction
rests on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 (a).”

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 (a) reads as follows:

(a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States. – http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1257

I guess the question is whether Vattel’s The Law of Nations is repugnant to the Constitution. LOL While I think SCOTUS ignoring this is awesome, it might actually be more entertaining to have SCOTUS rule that Vattel’s ideas do not run concurrent with 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (a). LOL

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Majority Will: It’s a waste of time and taxpayer resources from a handful of pathetic and delusional bigots.

bgansel9: Yes, but perhaps SCOTUS taking this up and ruling on it would stop the endless list of lawsuits that happen year after year (and maybe even will get Orly back to her Dentistry business).

More really a waste of whomevery is paying to put this brief together (not the Counsel Press logo on the front page…they’re actually a pretty good company that puts briefs together, and makes sure they comply with rules…perhaps Orly should give them a try).

This is probably going to land on some justice’s clerk’s desk. He’s going to get as far as the questions presented, realize it’s totally frivolous, and immediately add it to the list of “not recommended for further attention” petitions, and that will be the end of it until it appears on the list of cases denied cert without comment.

As much as we all would love to see Mario get a b!tch slap from SCOTUS, they’re just not going to waste a drop more ink on well establishied law beyond its caption appearing in a list of cert denied cases.

How about we all take a deep breath and see what happens. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of all for SCOTUS to provide a precise definition of the presidential qualification “natural born Citizen” and end all of the speculation and harshness once and for all – not just for the past, but more importantly for the future?

The outcomes are:
a – born in country to two citizen parents
b – born in country to at least one citizen parent
c – born in country without regard to parental citizenship
d – born to two citizen parents without regard to place of birth
e – born to at least one citizen parent without regard to place of birth
f – “citizen of the United States” = “natural born Citizen”
g – citizenship not required
h – no conditions what-so-ever*

*Remember that the Electoral College in 1872 found that the death of a candidate
did not disqualify him from being elected to the office of President, although it probably would have interfered with his ability to serve – (Horace Greeley received numerous votes and was awarded electors in the 1872 election, Horace died in late November shortly after the election – during the proceedings of the Electoral College several Georgia electors chose to cast ballots for Greeley – there was a qualification challenge and while the House found that he was not qualified BECAUSE HE WAS DEAD, the Senate found that he was still qualified, in cases of a incongruity between the two the decision was to find him qualified!

I mention this to remind everyone that all outcomes are possible and to emphasize how productive it would be to have the issue settled by the Supreme Court of the United States – once and for all!

H. Brooke Paige: How about we all take a deep breath and see what happens. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of all for SCOTUS to provide a precise definition of the presidential qualification “natural born Citizen” and end all of the speculation and harshness once and for all – not just for the past, but more importantly for the future?

This was already put to rest over a century ago time to get with the times Paige.

“Put the test?” – What test – When? Please inform us where the constitutional presidential qualifying term “natural born Citizen” is explicitly state by SCOTUS, the controlling authority. SCOTUS has not spoken and it is time for them to do so before we go through all of the again in 2016 with a new set of non-“nbC” candidates including Rubio, Cruz, Haley, Jindal and others (?).

Just out of curiosity, Dr. Noisewater, which of the choices I provided was found to be the correct definition (select one: a – h) – supply details, PLEASE!
Brooke

H. Brooke Paige:
“Put the test?” – What test – When? Please inform us where the constitutional presidential qualifying term “natural born Citizen” is explicitly state by SCOTUS, the controlling authority. SCOTUS has not spoken and it is time for them to do so before we go through all of the again in 2016 with a new set of non-”nbC” candidates including Rubio, Cruz, Haley, Jindal and others (?).

Just out of curiosity, Dr. Noisewater, which of the choices I provided was found to be the correct definition (select one: a – h)– supply details, PLEASE!
Brooke

Although your idiot attorney lies and states Minor v Happersett states what NBC is, he knows (or sure as hell should know) that SCOTUS settled this (Obama’s) issue in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). As for the others you cite as ineligible, Rubio should not be on the list. He was born in the U.S. Jindal was born in the U.S. Haley was born in the U.S. Cruz would likely be ruled eligible though AFAIK SCOTUS has not opined on his situation. If it comes to it (which it won’t) Congress will decide if he can serve unless there’s a SCOTUS ruling in the next 2 years re foreign birth to 1 or more citizen parents. Also highly unlikely to happen.

I don’t care if SCOTUS wants to waste its time issuing an opinion on your cert petition, but it’s highly unlikely they will do anything but deny without comment.

H. Brooke Paige:
“Put the test?” – What test – When? Please inform us where the constitutional presidential qualifying term “natural born Citizen” is explicitly state by SCOTUS, the controlling authority. SCOTUS has not spoken and it is time for them to do so before we go through all of the again in 2016 with a new set of non-”nbC” candidates including Rubio, Cruz, Haley, Jindal and others (?).

Just out of curiosity, Dr. Noisewater, which of the choices I provided was found to be the correct definition (select one: a – h)– supply details, PLEASE!
Brooke

Why? You have been told before by us and numerous modern courts scholars etc. You simply don’t want to bel accept it. Why don’t yuo contact an actual Constitutional law professor. I guess you would not like what you hear. Wong Kim Act was held to be a citizen because (and the “because” is part of the holding for those who have never studied law) both the natural born citizenship clause of the original Constitution and the 14th Amendment were based upon the English common law and its definition of natural born subject which the Court defined in great detail. Have you ever read the case? It doesn’t matter because Wong is the prevailing precedent. Such is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact. Sorry, but hte court usually doesn’t have the time to revisit settled law.

You must be very proud to have your name attached to a brief that pretty much misstates every thing it says. Seriously, I am not sure one thing in it is correct. Claiming Publius was probably Maidson with zero evidence is embarrassing and dishonest since Madison’s administration rejected the arguments of Publius. Claiming St. George Tucker adopted the Vattel definition is an out right lie. Citing cases that cited Vattel on subjects other than citizenship as being precedent on citizen would get you an F on any law school exam. You must be proud.

Without regard to merit, the raw statistics say 1 in 10, I would like to think that some of those are frivolous “jailhouse” filings and some are written in crayon on lined paper and delivered to the guard’s office at SCOTUS. So lets say 1 in 3 – of course in my heart of hearts I would not be going through all of this if II didn’t think the chances were near 100%.

H. Brooke Paige: The outcomes are:
a – born in country to two citizen parents
b – born in country to at least one citizen parent
c – born in country without regard to parental citizenship
d – born to two citizen parents without regard to place of birth
e – born to at least one citizen parent without regard to place of birth

You know, you can find the answers to these questions in Title 8 of U.S. Code. I don’t know why you think you need a special lesson in who is a citizen. The term Natural Born is not a special designation, it is only a citizen at birth.

Without regard to merit, the raw statistics say 1 in 10, I would like to think that some of those are frivolous “jailhouse” filings and some are written in crayon on lined paper and delivered to the guard’s office at SCOTUS. So lets say 1 in3 – of course in my heart of hearts I would not be going through all of this if II didn’t think the chances were near 100%.

H. Brooke Paige: It’s not which but a combination of several of them. Please inform us, which ones – Please detail the controlling authorities you are relying on!

Brooke

Did you not read the decision in your own case?!!

“…“natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed.”

THAT IS THE DEFINITION. The silence from the Supremes when any of these cases has been appealed to them is, as Birfoons are so fond of saying, “indirect confirmation” that the definition above is the current, consensus, operating definition. And not Sov-Cit-style magical pseudo-legal linguistic conjurations is going to change that.

There are plenty of non-idiot arguments that could be made. e.g.: “Since there are now so many people to pick from (unlike at the founding of the country) and since world travel is much easier now, and people move about the globe more making populations more diverse, we should pass an Amendment stipulating that Natural Born Citizen be hereafter defined for Presidential Eligibility purposes as a person born on US soil and having two citizen parents (or whatever).”

That wouldn’t be stupid, offensive, or insulting to the intelligence of actual law and Constitution scholars and historians.

Just as an aside to the McClure case. He was well-known to US Consul Armstrong. In a letter to Madison in 1807, he refers to McClure as a “naturalized citizen” being involved with US Consul Aaron Vale in a land speculation scheme to purchase portions of Florida before the US government. Armstrong himself was later accused of Florida land speculation (a charge he denied).

Armstrong helping the French arrest McClure in 1810 in L’Orient (where Vale was the US Consul) may have more to do with attempting to stop McClure/Vale than in any issue over citizenship.

BTW, after the US acquired Florida, Vale’s widow petitioned Congress to compensation for land her husband purchased in Florida but lost because of the US treaty.

“There is now at Madrid a naturalized American..This Man’s name is McClure. He is at once the Cap. of an American registered Ship and a proprietor in East Florida, characters not very reconcileable…he organized … a society for the purpose of out-bidding the U. S. in the purchase of the Floridas. …This information was given by A. Vail, a consul of the U. S. for the port of L’Orient, to a person of respectability whom he invited to join in the Speculation & who communicated it to me. Vail is the Agent of McClure in prosecuting a prize cause here. You will best know, what use can be made of this discovery at Madrid.”

You’re expecting a lot if you think your writ to the Supreme Court will get a definition for you. There might be a chance from a Ted Cruz lawsuit in the future.

I’m not speaking to you personally because I don’t know you personally, but many if not most birthers would not accept a definition that goes against them from the Supreme Court. Steven Craig is over at YouGov right now making the argument that the courts are prohibited by the Constitution from defining NBC and that Congress irrevocably defined it in the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which he misreads). Bob Gard in his eBook said that the courts couldn’t define it either. Ten courts plus the court in your case have rejected the theory that US Citizen parents are required, and yet you say it’s not decided. Every day the birthers over at BR say the courts are corrupt, ignorant, afraid or whatever, and that what they say means nothing.

So really I don’t see your case resolving anything for anybody, even in the hugely improbable event that it gets heard.

H. Brooke Paige: All I want is a clear definition of “nbC” – am I expecting a lot? Probably!

Without regard to merit, the raw statistics say 1 in 10, I would like to think that some of those are frivolous “jailhouse” filings and some are written in crayon on lined paper and delivered to the guard’s office at SCOTUS. So lets say 1 in3 – of course in my heart of hearts I would not be going through all of this if II didn’t think the chances were near 100%.

The article you directed us to was prepared for reporter’s questions relating to stays of execution in capital cases – in any case the figures are probably good.! I didn’t “slip a digit” , I had read that about 1,500 cases were submitted to SCOTUS each year and about 150 were accepted for consideration!

Dr. Conspiracy:
You’re expecting a lot if you think your writ to the Supreme Court will get a definition for you. There might be a chance from a Ted Cruz lawsuit in the future.

I’m not speaking to you personally because I don’t know you personally, but many if not most birthers would not accept a definition that goes against them from the Supreme Court. Steven Craig is over at YouGov right now making the argument that the courts are prohibited by the Constitution from defining NBC and that Congress irrevocably defined it in the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which he misreads). Bob Gard in his eBook said that the courts couldn’t define it either. Ten courts plus the court in your case have rejected the theory that US Citizen parents are required, and yet you say it’s not decided. Every day the birthers over at BR say the courts are corrupt, ignorant, afraid or whatever, and that what they say means nothing.

So really I don’t see your case resolving anything for anybody, even in the hugely improbable event that it gets heard.

Believe it or not – I would be pleased with a decision that any of the definitions I mentioned earlier – except “g” or “h” !

It is the lack of precision in the definition for such an important matter that disturbs me and I believe it is SCOTUS’ duty and obligation to settle the matter. Let’s see if they agree! Even if they reject my Writ – I will have my answer,

H. Brooke PaigeI had read that about 1,500 cases were submitted to SCOTUS each year and about 150 were accepted for consideration!

You read wrong; it is approximately 1 in 100.

And all cases are not created equal; it isn’t luck of the draw. Your case was dismissed as moot, and your attorney’s argument as to why it isn’t is border frivolous.

As to the definition of natural-born citizenship, there is a definition generally accepted by judges, scholars, and other experts — your disagreement (or ignorance) is not notable. Because the U.S. Supreme Court is a court of discretion, it isn’t going to waste its time on a legal issue where there is no substantial dispute.

CarlOrcas: Sorry….I have to ask: What answer will you get from a rejection?

If SCOTUS refuses to accept the Writ for consideration, I assume that they are saying “nothing to see here folks – move along!” While I will have my answer, you folks are probably correct in assuming others will not be content with the outcome.

Please! Nobody ran away, however after several days of this I came to the conclusion that it was pointless to continue. You folks were not convincing me (especially those calling me racist, imbecilic ,,,etc.) and I was equally certain that I was not going to convince anyone over here that I was right!

If I remember correctly I parted gracefully (however that may have been at another site?).

That is a good question. He is before the Supreme Court arguing that he cannot get relief in the state court because the state court denied him his purported 14th amendment right to be heard on the issue of natural born citizenship–when in fact the state court did consider the merits of his case and gave him the declarative legal definition he sought. Shameless.

Let’s face it, as he explained before he lost in Vermont, he brought his case to state court hoping to create a split among jurisdictions. The split would give him at least a chance at getting the US Supreme Court’s interest. That plan didn’t pan out.

Just for the heck of it lets look at how SCOTUS has ruled on the issue of Election Questions and Mootness – Just to see if I have any chance of having my case considered.

The principal issue for review is that of mootness and an election question, the VSC having ruled that the case at hand had become moot with the passage of time despite numerous rulings by SCOTUS that issues relating to elections have been consistently found to represent an exception to mootness.

First, Storer v. Brown 415 US 724 (footnote #8)

“[8] The 1972 election is long over, and no effective relief can be
provided to the candidates or voters, but this case is not moot, since the
issues properly presented, and their effects on independent candidacies,
will persist as the California statutes are applied in future elections.
This is, therefore, a case where the controversy is “capable of
repetition, yet evading review.” Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752,
756 n. 5 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore
v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v.
ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911). The “capable of repetition, yet evading
review” doctrine, in the context of election cases, is appropriate when
there are “as applied” challenges as well as in the more typical case
involving only facial attacks. The construction of the statute, an
understanding of its operation, and possible constitutional limits on its
application, will have the effect of simplifying future challenges, thus
increasing the likelihood that timely filed cases can be adjudicated
before an election is held.”

[3] After the Court of Appeals denied a motion for expedited appeal,
respondent filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in
this Court, together with a motion to expedite consideration of the
petition. The motion and the petition were both denied before the election
in November 1980. 448 U. S. 914 and 918 (1980). Even though the 1980
election is over, the case is not moot. See Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S.
724, 737, n. 8 (1974).

Third, Norman v. Reed 02 US 279 (syllabus – #1 )

I – We start with Reed’s contention that we should treat the controversy
as moot because the election is over. We should 288*288 not. Even if the
issue before us were limited to petitioners’ eligibility to use the Party
name on the 1990 ballot, that issue would be worthy of resolution as
“`capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U.
S. 814, 816 (1969). There would be every reason to expect the same parties
to generate a similar, future controversy subject to identical time
constraints if we should fail to resolve the constitutional issues that
arose in 1990.

The matter before us carries a potential of even greater significance,
however. As we have noted, the 1990 electoral results would entitle the
HWP to enter the next election as an established party in all or part of
Cook County, freed from the petition requirements of § 10-2, so long as
its candidates were entitled to the places on the ballot that our stay
order effectively gave them. This underscores the vitality of the
questions posed, even though the election that gave them life is now
behind us.

Fourth, Moore v. Ogilivie 394 US 814 (syllabus #1)

I – On October 8, 1968, the same day the case was docketed, appellants
filed a motion to advance and expedite the hearing and disposition of this
cause. Appellees opposed the motion. On October 14, 1968, we entered the
following order:

“Because of the representation of the State of Illinois that `it would be
a physical impossibility’ for the State `to effectuate the relief which
the appellants seek,’ the `Motion to Advance and Expedite the 816*816
Hearing and Disposition of this Cause’ is denied. MR. JUSTICE FORTAS would
grant the motion.”

Appellees urged in a motion to dismiss that since the November 5, 1968,
election has been held, there is no possibility of granting any relief to
appellants and that the appeal should be dismissed. But while the 1968
election is over, the burden which MacDougall v. Green, supra, allowed to
be placed on the nomination of candidates for statewide offices remains
and controls future elections, as long as Illinois maintains her present
system as she has done since 1935. The problem is therefore “capable of
repetition, yet evading review,” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v.
Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U. S. 498, 515. The need for its
resolution thus reflects a continuing controversy in the federal-state
area where our “one man, one vote” decisions have thrust. We turn then to
the merits.

Fifth, Rosario v. Rockefeller 410 US 752 (footnote #5)

[5] Although the June primary election has been completed and the
petitioners will be eligible to vote in the next scheduled New York
primary, this case is not moot, since the question the petitioners raise
is ” `capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405
U. S. 330, 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969);
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).

Sixth, Dunn v. Blumstein 405 US 330 (footnote #2)

[2]On July 30, the District Court refused to grant a preliminary
injunction permitting Blumstein and members of the class he represented to
vote in the August 6 election; the court noted that to do so would be “so
obviously disruptive as to constitute an example of judicial
improvidence.” The District Court also denied a motion that Blumstein be
allowed to cast a sealed provisional ballot for the election.

At the time the opinion below was filed, the next election was to be held
in November 1970, at which time Blumstein would have met the three-month
part of Tennessee’s durational residency requirements. The District Court
properly rejected the State’s position that the alleged invalidity of the
three-month requirement had been rendered moot, and the State does not
pursue any mootness argument here. Although appellee now can vote, the
problem to voters posed by the Tennessee residence requirements is ”
`capable of repetition, yet evading review.'” Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S.
814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515
(1911). In this case, unlike Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45 (1969), the laws
in question remain on the books and Blumstein has standing to challenge
them as a member of the class of people affected by the
presently written statute.

So I believe that II may well succeed in my effort to revive my case and hopefully continue to the “nbC” issue,

I’ve read what you and your attorney wrote. It is unconvincing because President Obama will never be elected president again, and the “concerns” about potential candidates in future elections is entirely too speculative. Unlike the issues raised in the cases that you think help make your case.

It also rings disingenuous — because it is disingenuous.

But, hey: The Supreme Court of Vermont already explained all this, and you didn’t listen then.

H. Brooke Paige: Just for the heck of it lets look at how SCOTUS has ruled on the issue of Election Questions and Mootness

——-
Do any of the case you cite involve a state court applying mootness? I’ve brought this to your attention on multiple occasions without any response from you.

The Vermont Supreme Court’s mootness doctrine is a jurisdictional issue based on the Vermont State Constitution, not based on Article III (which is what the U.S. Supreme Court applies for its mootness doctrine). In short, you are asking the US Court to tell the State Court that it is not applying its own State Constitution correctly. Sounds pretty anti-states-rights to me.

I hope that when your case is dismissed without comment (which I believe is as near a certainty as possible) you will come back here and confirm that you accept President Obama as a natural born citizen and your legitimate president, but until then you are following a pattern that has been played out here many times only to see the goalposts move instead of acceptance. I would like to see you demonstrate the kind of integrity which birthers seem to lack, but you must understand that from our point of view, the odds are very much against it.

H. Brooke Paige: If SCOTUS refuses to accept the Writ for consideration, I assume that they are saying “nothing to see here folks – move along!” While I will have my answer, you folks are probably correct in assuming others will not be content with the outcome.

The principal issue for review is mootness relating to an election question, the VSC having ruled that the case at hand had become moot with the passage of time despite numerous rulings by SCOTUS that issues relating to elections have been consistently found to represent an exception to mootness.

First, Storer v. Brown 415 US 724 (footnote #8)

“[8] The 1972 election is long over, and no effective relief can be
provided to the candidates or voters, but this case is not moot, since the
issues properly presented, and their effects on independent candidacies,
will persist as the California statutes are applied in future elections.
This is, therefore, a case where the controversy is “capable of
repetition, yet evading review.” Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U. S. 752,
756 n. 5 (1973); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore
v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v.
ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911). The “capable of repetition, yet evading
review” doctrine, in the context of election cases, is appropriate when
there are “as applied” challenges as well as in the more typical case
involving only facial attacks. The construction of the statute, an
understanding of its operation, and possible constitutional limits on its
application, will have the effect of simplifying future challenges, thus
increasing the likelihood that timely filed cases can be adjudicated
before an election is held.”

[3] After the Court of Appeals denied a motion for expedited appeal,
respondent filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in
this Court, together with a motion to expedite consideration of the
petition. The motion and the petition were both denied before the election
in November 1980. 448 U. S. 914 and 918 (1980). Even though the 1980
election is over, the case is not moot. See Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S.
724, 737, n. 8 (1974).

Third, Norman v. Reed 02 US 279 (syllabus – #1 )

I – We start with Reed’s contention that we should treat the controversy
as moot because the election is over. We should 288*288 not. Even if the
issue before us were limited to petitioners’ eligibility to use the Party
name on the 1990 ballot, that issue would be worthy of resolution as
“`capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U.
S. 814, 816 (1969). There would be every reason to expect the same parties
to generate a similar, future controversy subject to identical time
constraints if we should fail to resolve the constitutional issues that
arose in 1990.

The matter before us carries a potential of even greater significance,
however. As we have noted, the 1990 electoral results would entitle the
HWP to enter the next election as an established party in all or part of
Cook County, freed from the petition requirements of § 10-2, so long as
its candidates were entitled to the places on the ballot that our stay
order effectively gave them. This underscores the vitality of the
questions posed, even though the election that gave them life is now
behind us.

Fourth, Moore v. Ogilivie 394 US 814 (syllabus #1)

I – On October 8, 1968, the same day the case was docketed, appellants
filed a motion to advance and expedite the hearing and disposition of this
cause. Appellees opposed the motion. On October 14, 1968, we entered the
following order:

“Because of the representation of the State of Illinois that `it would be
a physical impossibility’ for the State `to effectuate the relief which
the appellants seek,’ the `Motion to Advance and Expedite the 816*816
Hearing and Disposition of this Cause’ is denied. MR. JUSTICE FORTAS would
grant the motion.”

Appellees urged in a motion to dismiss that since the November 5, 1968,
election has been held, there is no possibility of granting any relief to
appellants and that the appeal should be dismissed. But while the 1968
election is over, the burden which MacDougall v. Green, supra, allowed to
be placed on the nomination of candidates for statewide offices remains
and controls future elections, as long as Illinois maintains her present
system as she has done since 1935. The problem is therefore “capable of
repetition, yet evading review,” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v.
Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U. S. 498, 515. The need for its
resolution thus reflects a continuing controversy in the federal-state
area where our “one man, one vote” decisions have thrust. We turn then to
the merits.

Fifth, Rosario v. Rockefeller 410 US 752 (footnote #5)

[5] Although the June primary election has been completed and the
petitioners will be eligible to vote in the next scheduled New York
primary, this case is not moot, since the question the petitioners raise
is ” `capable of repetition, yet evading review.’ ” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405
U. S. 330, 333 n. 2 (1972); Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969);
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).

Sixth, Dunn v. Blumstein 405 US 330 (footnote #2)

[2]On July 30, the District Court refused to grant a preliminary
injunction permitting Blumstein and members of the class he represented to
vote in the August 6 election; the court noted that to do so would be “so
obviously disruptive as to constitute an example of judicial
improvidence.” The District Court also denied a motion that Blumstein be
allowed to cast a sealed provisional ballot for the election.

At the time the opinion below was filed, the next election was to be held
in November 1970, at which time Blumstein would have met the three-month
part of Tennessee’s durational residency requirements. The District Court
properly rejected the State’s position that the alleged invalidity of the
three-month requirement had been rendered moot, and the State does not
pursue any mootness argument here. Although appellee now can vote, the
problem to voters posed by the Tennessee residence requirements is ”
`capable of repetition, yet evading review.'” Moore v. Ogilivie, 394 U. S.
814, 816 (1969); Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515
(1911). In this case, unlike Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45 (1969), the laws
in question remain on the books and Blumstein has standing to challenge
them as a member of the class of people affected by the
presently written statute.

I believe that I (we) have a reasonable chance of succeeding and continuing on to the “nbC” question.

I believe that I (we) have a reasonable chance of succeeding and continuing on to the “nbC” question.

Brooke

Uh, no. First of all, the sole issue before the Supreme Court would be mootness as that is all that was decided below. If they agreed with you on mootness, they would send the case down for consideration on ther merits. It is fantasy that they would take up the NBC issue on their own when such wasn’t addressed below.

On the mootness question, such is a matter of Vermont law and the Supreme court will not address Vermont law unless it violates the Constitution or some other federal law. Thus, the cases you cite are not relevant. You have to argue that the dismissal of your case for mootness violated some provision of the Constitution or federal statute. Mario tries to argue that such mootness violated your due process rights and, of course, has no authority to back up such a claim. It’s called making stuff up. He tried to make similar claims in his ill-fated Kerchner case with respect to standing. What do they way about the definition of insanity? Sorry, these arguments are by definition frivolous. Perhaps you should talk to someone who understands the law before you make these filings.

ballantine: Uh, no. First of all, the sole issue before the Supreme Court would be mootness as that is all that was decided below. If they agreed with you on mootness, they would send the case down for consideration on ther merits. It is fantasy that they would take up the NBC issue on their own when such wasn’t addressed below.

Why do these birther litigants always think that if they just get in the door, they are owed a full hearing? Makes no sense.

What I find disgusting about this filing is the 14th amendment “pursuit of happiness” horse hockey. Paige is saying that he is being injured because he thinks a candidate he didn’t like is ineligible. Of course it has been ruled and demonstrated that the argument is not only wrong but pathetically wrong. However, instead of acting like a rational person and simple not voting for a candidate he thought was ineligible Paige wants to nullify the votes of us who not only thought Obama was eligible but thought he was by far better than Mitt Romney to lead the country. To that I say a big FU and the horse he road in on. I personally will dancing a jig when Paige’s and the loser Apuzzo’s pile of poop gets flushed.

There is no way that a conservative majority on the Supreme Court is going to abrogate the electoral will of the majority of voters in a national election; nor will they nullify states’ right to determine who is eligible for their ballot.
CERT DENIED!

Paige v. Condos, Obama is one of 19 court rulings that explicitly found Barack Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Reality Check:
…Paige wants to nullify the votes of us who not only thought Obama was eligible but thought he was by far better than Mitt Romney to lead the country. To that I say a big FU and the horse he road in on. I personally will dancing a jig when Paige’s and the loser Apuzzo’s pile of poop gets flushed.

There is no lack of precision in the definition. None. The definition is SIMPLE and EXACT.

A person is a “natural born citizen” if, and only if, that person became a citizen at birth.

It is as simple as that. The parent’s citizenship status doesn’t come into the “natural born citizen” in any way shape or form.

If the birth actually occurred outside the United States, the status of the Parents determines if the child is a citizen (not a “natural born citizen”), or not. If the child is a citizen, then it follows that the Child was born a citizen and is therefore a “natural born citizen” (there is academic discussion about whether citizen children born overseas are born citizens, or ‘just’ automatically’ naturalized at birth – but Congress basically set the precedent with its declaration about John McCain).

that disturbs me and I believe it is SCOTUS’ duty and obligation to settle the matter.

SCOTUS ‘duties and obligations’ are set forth in the Constitution. Are you saying that your beliefs trump the Constitution?

SCOTUS ruled in 1898 in a case that established the fundamental definition I wrote above. It is settled law and SCOTUS has no ‘duty’ no ‘obligation’ to revisit settled law.

Let’s see if they agree! Even if they reject my Writ – I will have my answer,

You have had your answer every time. Why should anyone conclude that you will accept that answer this time? Or that you will not interpret the ‘answer’ that is communicated to you by SCOTUS refusing to listen to your arguments as anything other than the complete repudiation of case?

Reality Check:
What I find disgusting about this filing is the 14th amendment “pursuit of happiness” horse hockey. Paige is saying that he is being injured because he thinks a candidate he didn’t like is ineligible. Of course it has been ruled and demonstrated that the argument is not only wrong but pathetically wrong. However, instead of acting like a rational person and simple not voting for a candidate he thought was ineligible Paige wants to nullify the votes of us who not only thought Obama was eligible but thought he was by far better than Mitt Romney to lead the country. To that I say a big FU and the horse he road in on. I personally will dancing a jig when Paige’s and the loser Apuzzo’s pile of poop gets flushed.

Then Brooke-san, the presidency’s of certain presidents should not have happened since by your definition, they would not have two natural US citizens for parents. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) [the only president born of two immigrants, both from Northern Ireland, his parents died before the US became a country and was born in Ireland thus by that very nature, foreign born]; Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) [Mother is from England]; James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885) [both of whom had Protestant Irish fathers. Arthur’s dad became a US Citizen years after his birth, 19 years to be exact]; Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.

Explain then why they make the cut and not O. I already shown you a list of presidents who would not make it. Jackson has no parents born during the time of independence. Father dead before the Revolutionary War and mother was undecided at best when she died DURING THE WAR. Jackson’s mother worked as a volunteer Nurse to patriot prisoners while they were imprisoned by the British. Jefferson’s mom died while he was young. Herbert Hoover’s mother is Canadian while Wilson’s mother is English. James Buchanan [president Buchanan’s father] and William Arthur [President Arthur’s father], under UK law were British subjects. Buchanan, though unlike Arthur who’s naturalization rescinded his British Nationality with the passage of the Naturalization Act, 33 &34 Vict. c. 14 in 1870 (at age 41) [I forgot this act was even passed, boy I feel stupid.], was able to pass such a status to his son, President Buchanan.

By the statutes of 4 Geo. II, c. 21, and 13 Geo. III, c. 21, once a British Subject [this was rescinded via the Naturalization Act, 33 &34 Vict. c. 14 in 1870] always one even Second, third generation. Statues of 4 Geo. II, c. 21, and 13 Geo. III, c. 21 is why impressment happened. Eventually as noted before 1870 by the Victorian law this was rescinded.

Kenya on the other hand is an all or nothing country. Our 44th President [Cleveland is both 22nd and 24th hence why Obama is the 44th] had to choice his Kenyan over his American. Guess what, he didn’t. Thus he cannot be a Kenyan Citizen.

Fun fact John Quincy Adams wife was the only First Lady born out of the US, in this case, England.

Arthur also had his Birthers as well. When claims to his dual nationality as a smear did not work out, a new smear that he was born in Canada as opposed to Vermont was contrived. So President Obama isn’t the only one with this mess.

Also, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following (as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”)…

(a) Anyone born inside the United States [that includes anchor babies]

(b) Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe

(c) Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. [Your definition]

(d) Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

(e) Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year [McCain since we owned the Panama Canal till September 7 1977; Blame Carter for giving it back]

(f) Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

(g) Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) [McCain (and Obama if he wasn’t born in the US which he was, in Hawaii)]

Please! Nobody ran away, however after several days of this I came to the conclusion that it was pointless to continue. You folks were not convincing me (especially those calling me racist, imbecilic ,,,etc.) and I was equally certain that I was not going to convince anyone over here that I was right!

If I remember correctly I parted gracefully (however that may have been at another site?).

Best Wishes,
Brooke

Because birthers like yourself would never be convinced. The only thing you believe is a negative conclusion against the President despite it being contrary to reality.

Reality Check:
What I find disgusting about this filing is the 14th amendment “pursuit of happiness” horse hockey. Paige is saying that he is being injured because he thinks a candidate he didn’t like is ineligible. Of course it has been ruled and demonstrated that the argument is not only wrong but pathetically wrong. However, instead of acting like a rational person and simple not voting for a candidate he thought was ineligible Paige wants to nullify the votes of us who not only thought Obama was eligible but thought he was by far better than Mitt Romney to lead the country. To that I say a big FU and the horse he road in on. I personally will dancing a jig when Paige’s and the loser Apuzzo’s pile of poop gets flushed.

I will try to explain my position and I believe the constitutional viewpoint of Article 2, Section 2 which states that “No person except a ‘natural born Citizen’, or a ‘citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (1787-1788?)’, shall be eligible be to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

Your comment comingled several elements which I will try to deal with individually:

First when the Constitution was enacted the nation had no “natural born Citizens”, it could not – it had to wait until its citizens made them – this is why the “or” citizens at the time of the Adoption…” phrase had to be included so the nation could have citizens eligible to serve as President until such time as individuals could be born in the country to its citizens and reach the required age to serve. The first Presidents were viewed as acceptable to serve as they had renounced their British Subjecthood and had embraced and championed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the republic created by it. (I will assume the age and residency qualifications need not be discussed.)

The “grandfathered” Presidents include
:
George Washington – born February 22, 1732 in Westmoreland Co., Virginia
John Adams – born October 30, 1735 in Braintree, Massachusetts
Thomas Jefferson – born April 13, 1743 in Albemarle Co., Virginia
James Madison, Jr. – born March 16, 1743 in Port Conway, King George, Virginia
James Monroe – born April 28, 1758 in Westmoreland Co., Virginia
John Quincy Adams – born July 11, 1767 in Braintree, Massachusetts
Andrew Jackson – born March 15, 1767 in Waxhaw, South Carolina
Martin Van Buren – born December 5, 1782 in Columbia, New York
William Henry Harrison – born February 9, 1773 in Charles City Co. Virginia
Zachary Taylor – born November 24, 1784 in Orange Co., Virginia
John Tyler – born in 1790 was the first president who needed to be a “natural born citizen in order to qualify, he was born in Charles City Co., Virginia to two Virginia born parents.

Additionally, the first Vice Presidents could not be “Natural born Citizens” like the first Presidents they were “grandfathered” in by the same “or…adoption” clause, they included:

John Adams – born October 30, 1735 in Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts
Thomas Jefferson – born April 13, 1743 in Albemarle Co. Virginia
Aaron Burr, Jr. – born February 6 1756 in Newark, New Jersey
George Clinton – born July 26, 1739 in Little Britain, Ulster Co., New York
Elbridge T. Gerry – born July 17, 1744 in Marblehead, Massachusetts
Daniel D. Tompkins – born June 21,1774 in Scarsdale, New York
John C. Calhoun – born March 18, 1782 in McCormick Co. South Carolina
Martin Van Buren – born December 5, 1782 in Columbia New York
Richard Mentor Johnson – born October 17, 1780 in Beargrass, Kentucky
William Rufus King – born April 7, 1786 in Sampson Co., North Carolina

All other Presidents (and Vice Presidents) born after the “founding era”, other than Mr. Obama have been “natural born CItizen(s)’ with one exception:

Chester Alan Arthur – born October 5, 1829 in Fairfax Vermont. Chester’s mother was born April 29, 1802 in Berkshire, Vermont; his father, William Arthur, was born in 1796 in Antrim, Ireland and immigrated to America in 1814, however he did not become a naturalized citizen until 1843 when Chester was14 years old and living in upstate New York. When he was running for Vice President the “nbC” question arose however the question revolved around his place of birth “was he born in Fairfield or just over the border in Canada?” The real question should have been “when was his, William, father naturalized?” Chester was aware of his debility and worked “mightily” to keep it secret destroying all family records that would reveal the fact., On his deathbed, years later, his son pledged to his father to make sure any evidence of the secret would be destroyed. In fact it was not until the 1980’s that the first evidence of his father’s naturalization was found in a Country Courthouse in upstate New York. Some Obama supporters point to this scrap of history to claim that this error, unknown to the public at the time of Arthurs election and service, is “the exception that proved the rule.” I believe it is not – merely the first time a President concealed evidence of his debility in order to serve – unqualified.

A second misunderstanding(?) you seem to hold, one used by those who wish to misinterpret the “nbC” clause is that a “natural born Citizen” must be born of two
“nbC” parents – this is not my position! I am quite sure that the parents must be only “citizens of the United States” at the time of their “nbC” child’s birth in country, in fact I postulated before the Vermont Supreme Court when this question arose that even if the parents naturalized – a few days, a few hours before the birth of their child in country; that that child would still be qualified to serve as President.

As to your “citizen at birth” and other conditions – I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment makes children born in country to non-citizens (one or two) “citizens naturalized at birth” by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment provisions. While “citizens of the United States” who are not “nbC”(s) are made so by the law, “NbC”s are born into their citizenship and need no law to inherit their legacy.

Lastly, as to John McCain, he was born to two citizen parents in the canal zone (or off base in a local hospital) – the Vattelian model specifically includes a provision for those children born abroad to parents in service to their country – therefore regardless of whether McCain was born in the canal zone or off his parents service allowed him to be born an “nbC”.

In your list your condition (d) was not something I provided you with and I do not believe the conditions described are sufficient to make one an “nbC”, though certainly a “citizen of the United States”.

I hope this helps to explain my position, though I doubt anyone here will be convinced or change their minds.

“I hope this helps to explain my position, though I doubt anyone here will be convinced or change their minds.”

It explains your position, Brooke, and that of many birthers. The reason no one here would be convinced or change their minds is that there is absolutely no historical nor legal precedent for your position… Zero. Nada.

Just out of curiosity, have you read Section 214 of Vattel? How about the dissent in opinion in Wong Kim Ark? Yes, I know dissenting opinions are not precedent but reading it certainly shows the clear understanding they had of what WKA held.

—–
I think everyone understands your position on this, though it is clear that the lower court in your case gave a very different definition, as did all the lower courts and the U.S. Supreme Court when they have addressed the issue of natural born citizen.

Be that as it may, it is very troubling that you still have not addressed the state/federal court mootness issue. I asked you about it months ago, and again brought it to your attention yesterday. So did Ballantine. Why do you refuse to address it?

The entire mootness doctrine is based on jurisdictional limits set forth in a constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court’s mootness doctrine is based on Art. III of the U.S. Constitution. Since Article III governs all federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the application of mootness in federal cases on appeal. (i.e., like the federal court cases you cited in your brief). HOWEVER, the Vermont Supreme Court is NOT an Article III court. Instead, it derives its mootness doctrine from the Vermont State Constitution, and it reviews the application of mootness on state cases on appeal.

If you want to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to review a state court application of its own state constitution, then you need to address that question directly. As Ballantine pointed out, the Court will never overturn a state court’s application of its own state constitution unless the state constitution or application of the state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution or federal law. You are literally trying to get the US Supreme Court to force jurisdiction upon a State Court in contravention to its own state constitution, and without any basis in the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, at the same time, you are also telling the U.S. Supreme Court that only it can truly address the merits properly.

H. Brooke Paige: First when the Constitution was enacted the nation had no “natural born Citizens”, it could not – it had to wait until its citizens made them – this is why the “or” citizens at the time of the Adoption

J.D. Sue: If you want to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to review a state court application of its own state constitution, then you need to address that question directly. As Ballantine pointed out, the Court will never overturn a state court’s application of its own state constitution unless the state constitution or application of the state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution or federal law. You are literally trying to get the US Supreme Court to force jurisdiction upon a State Court in contravention to its own state constitution, and without any basis in the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, at the same time, you are also telling the U.S. Supreme Court that only it can truly address the merits properly.

J.D. Sue: Be that as it may, it is very troubling that you still have not addressed the state/federal court mootness issue. I asked you about it months ago, and again brought it to your attention yesterday. So did Ballantine. Why do you refuse to address it?

That’s usually what happens when ignorance hires incompetence.

Vexatious, delusional bigots should be fined and literally laughed out of court.

The coverage seems to agree with Brooke, even though the courts have not agreed with Brooke. Shoddy journalism. They completely avoid the issue of why Vattel’s argument (the one these birthers use, not the one Vattel uses that would negate such) is not the rule of law.

Brooke, can you please explain why you dismiss Vattel’s Section 214? Is not America a close relative of England? Weren’t many of our settlers English, and didn’t King George VI think he had a right to sovereignty here? Didn’t the United States win our independence from England? Wasn’t our own Constitution written to emulate the Magna Carta? Didn’t our immigrant ancestors choose to make English the prominent language and not Spanish or French? Why is the U.S. citizenship issue different from England? – http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/magna-carta-cornerstone-us-constitution

bgansel9:
Brooke, can you please explain why you dismiss Vattel’s Section 214? Is not America a close relative of England? Weren’t many of our settlers English, and didn’t King George VI think he had a right to sovereignty here? Didn’t the United States win our independence from England? Wasn’t our own Constitution written to emulate the Magna Carta? Didn’t our immigrant ancestors choose to make English the prominent language and not Spanish or French? Why is the U.S. citizenship issue different from England? – http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/magna-carta-cornerstone-us-constitution

Yes, but not accurate. Jackson’s parents were dead by the time he was fourteen. His dad died before he was born and his mom was pretty much a loyalist/neutral at best. The lady WORKED FOR THE BRITISH as a nurse for prisoners. That’s kinda how she died, chorea infection. BOTH WERE FOREIGN BORN as in not on US soil. They couldn’t be grandfathered in as they weren’t here and renounced any citizenship. Jefferson’s mom was not born here, but England. In fact Jefferson is a descendent of William Randolph through his mother. She died before we declared our independence on March 31st, 1776. She was still an English Subject.

James Madison’s parents were what will be US soil [Virgina] as were , Washinton’s, and Monroe’s. John Adams parents were from Mass. John Quincy Adams of course is excused his parents were John and Abigail Adams who both were born here. William Henry Harrison’s father is Benjamin Harrison V and Elizabeth Basset Harrison. I’m sure you recognize the name Benjamin Harrison V (a member of the prominent Harrison family of VA). William Harrison’s mother is also from VA. Oddly he was after Van Buren and before Taylor; both who were born when we had our first government before the Constitution.

Martin Van Buren was the first president born a citizen of the United States, as all previous presidents were born before the American Revolution. He wasn’t. He was born when we had The Articles of Confederation [as was John C Calhoun, Richard Mentor Johnson and William Rufus King]. Martin Van Buren was born 1782. Zachary Taylor is also born during the time we had the Articles of Confederation. Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787. Remember, we had a government before hand. Its the Articles of Confederation [otherwise known as the Failure of Confederation, The Government of 13 Angry States and The Reason we have the Constitution]. So again you are wrong.

John Tyler was born after the constitution was ratified, but that doesn’t really matter since two were born after the the Revolution but before the ratification of the Constitution. The rest were before the Revolution with one of them, Andrew Jackson, with foreign born Presidents while Jefferson had one. John Tyler was the first president after the ratification of the Constitution. He is from the Tyler family. Like William Henry Harrison, he was born in Charles City County, Virginia. Tyler’s mother was also Virginian. The one you should look at is Buchanan who had an Irish Father and not an American born father.

According to UK Law, all above counts as British Subjects despite the whole independence thing, by the virtue of statutes of 4 Geo. II, c. 21, and 13 Geo. III, c. 21 [until the Victorian Law] ALL of them were British Subjects. This is the legal justification for impressment. You do recall the War of 1812, right? Impressment happened because essentially, it didn’t matter that the US was another country, they were ALL British Subjects..

It is not until the Victorian Law [Naturalization Act, 33 &34 Vict. c. 14 in 1870] did this status became a non issue for Americans. Arthur made that cut since it was 1870, Buchanan did not. Buchanan’s dad was a British Subject as was Arthur’s. James Buchanan had duo citizenship not just birth but during his presidency. If Arthur doesn’t make the cut neither does the first 19 due to statue on the books state they will be British subjects.

Buchanan was not born of Two Natural citizens, neither was Arthur. Again you fail to get it. Yet he was the president. Explain wise one, why was Buchanan president if Vattel is written as the way we do Natural Born citizens. Buchanan’s dad was Irish born. Explain as he was the first after the ratification of the Constitution.

Charles Evans Hughes also did. Hughes father was born in Wales. He was Wilson’s opponent in the 1916 election. Wilson’s mother was born in England. Interesting isn’t it. Hoover after him had a Canadian mother. All three had one parents were considered Natural Born citizen (born in USA) and the other who is not. You were saying.

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth..”
Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830)

Minor, the person involving that case was born in Caroline County, Virginia on March 27, 1824. Both of her parents were born in Virginia in the 1790′s, and all of her grandparents had been born in the Virginia colony. (One of her grandmothers was a cousin of President James Madison.) According to you, by definition of her own family tree. She had to be a natural born citizen. Why wasn’t she given the right to vote?

H. Brooke Paige: How about we all take a deep breath and see what happens. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of all for SCOTUS to provide a precise definition of the presidential qualification “natural born Citizen” and end all of the speculation and harshness once and for all – not just for the past, but more importantly for the future?

The outcomes are:
a – born in country to two citizen parents
b – born in country to at least one citizen parent
c – born in country without regard to parental citizenship
d – born to two citizen parents without regard to place of birth
e – born to at least one citizen parent without regard to place of birth
f – “citizen of the United States” = “natural born Citizen”
g – citizenship not required
h – no conditions what-so-ever*

H. Brooke Paige:
“Put the test?” – What test – When? Please inform us where the constitutional presidential qualifying term “natural born Citizen” is explicitly state by SCOTUS, the controlling authority. SCOTUS has not spoken and it is time for them to do so before we go through all of the again in 2016 with a new set of non-”nbC” candidates including Rubio, Cruz, Haley, Jindal and others (?).

Just out of curiosity, Dr. Noisewater, which of the choices I provided was found to be the correct definition (select one: a – h)– supply details, PLEASE!
Brooke

Your position is simply wrong with regards to the grandfather clause and your neglect in considering the clause I’ve highlighted in Section 2. The grandfather clause does not excuse anyone from the residency requirement and, as a result, we know that President Washington must have become a US citizen by at least 1775! Clearly the only event which could have granted him US citizenship on or before 1775 would have been his birth in Virginia which would mean that, Constitutionally speaking, General Washington was considered a natural born citizen of the US (regardless of the nationality of his parents).

Since we’ve established that natural born subjects of the Colonies became, at the very least, citizens of the US retroactive to the date of their birth, we know that, in all 13 Colonies, a native born child of alien parents became a US citizen at birth until July 4th, 1776. Birther theory requires that this rule changed at some point thereafter, but the facts contradict that notion. There is no way that this could have changed at a national level before the ratification of the Constitution, so me must look to the Several States. Virginia enacted a law which explicitly embraced jus soli which means that a child of alien parents was a natural born citizen in Virginia until ratification at least. Furthermore, none of the other states enacted legislation (or Constitutions) which explicitly rejected jus soli, so we must assume that they, too, followed jus soli when the Constitution went into effect. Since the Constitution doesn’t explicitly define “natural born citizen”, it could not have denied citizenship to the native-born children of aliens in particular.

So we see that a child born of British parents in Washington, D.C. in 1790 and raised in England until the age of majority could return to the US as late as reaching adulthood and, after residing there for 14 years, become eligible for the presidency upon reaching the age of 35.

Now we come to the point where the nature of citizenship was actually changed—in absolutely the worst place for the birther argument: Scott v. Sandford. This decision, which even cites the same mistranslated, cherry-picked passage from Vattel* that is the core of the birther argument, was the first (and only) act which called the citizenship of native-born children of alien parents into question.

Since the only evidence of abandoning jus soli citizenship was the Dred Scott decision, this clearly shows that the 14th Amendment restored the condition that had prevailed before the SCOTUS made what is widely believed to have been one of their greatest mistakes. In other words, the 14th Amendment merely overturned Dred Scott without creating any new classes of citizenship. While the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett didn’t do their homework and expressed doubts about this, the justices did their due diligence in Wonk Kim Ark and put to rest any doubts that the US is and always was a jus soli nation.

Mr. Paige, you are lucky that your case will be denied cert without comment due to the mootness issues that others here raised and you failed to address either in your brief or in your comments because if the SCOTUS actually considered the facts of the case then your argument would be shown to be utterly frivolous by not just this line of reasoning but countless others.

“Give us you tired, your weak, your huddled masses yearning to be free”

Those words must be anathema to a birther like yourself, Mr. Paige, but they express a principle that this country was built on—if you don’t like it, I suggest you move elsewhere and stop cluttering American courts with your frivolous nonsense, although I’m sure you would be welcome to return here for your promised helping of crow after events play out exactly like the people here predicted.

*Translated after the ratification of the Constitution.

H. Brooke Paige: I will try to explain my position and I believe the constitutional viewpoint of Article 2, Section 2 which states that “No person except a ‘natural born Citizen’, or a ‘citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (1787-1788?)’, shall be eligible be to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

While your comment shows outstanding scholarship, I think you are incorrect (or at least not completely correct) on this point. As is clear from my comment above, I believe that all of our presidents were considered to have been (natural) born citizens of the United States even if they were born before the Revolution.

The Looker: Martin Van Buren was the first president born a citizen of the United States, as all previous presidents were born before the American Revolution.

Mr. Paige, I would like your take on the following conundrum: You (or most likely, Apuzzo) have focused your citizenship requirements on those of the President. The Constitution also says that Congressmen, Senators, Justices must be Citizens of the United States. The ONLY way to become a U.S. Citizen that was Constitutionally prescribed until the 14th Amendment was in force was through the enactment of naturalization laws. Clearly, no one would even have been constitutionally eligible for the First Congress if there were not an understanding that Common Law provided for citizenship for these people (there is no grandfather escape clause for anyone but President). How do you explain this?

The additional irony here is that Mr. Paige holds himself out elsewhere as a state’s rights kinda guy. These abstract and technical-sounding legal issues are really the basis of things like state’s rights–it’s about how much power the U.S. Constitution/Courts have over State Constitution(s)/Courts. I think Mr. Paige should be careful of what he’s asking for. And I think his lawyer should know better.

He’s come up with some doozies over there, like “THERE WAS NO NATIVE, aka JUS SOLI CITIZENSHIP” before the 14th Amendment. He still hasn’t explained how his claim that the Founders were “1st generation U.S. Citizen
that had been collectively naturalized by the Adoption of the COTUS” and that “There were NO U.s. Citizens insofar as the Constitutional FEDERAL LAW is concerned prior to the adoption” accounts for the First Congress meeting less than a year after the adoption of the Constitution, which requires representatives to have been US citizens for seven years and Senators, US citizens for nine years.

Dr. Conspiracy: Steven Craig is over at YouGov right now making the argument that the courts are prohibited by the Constitution from defining NBC and that Congress irrevocably defined it in the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which he misreads).

While you’re at it, just exactly how long is it from July 4, 1776, to March 4, 1789?

H. Brooke Paige: I will try to explain my position and I believe the constitutional viewpoint of Article 2, Section 2 which states that “No person except a ‘natural born Citizen’, or a ‘citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (1787-1788?)’, shall be eligible be to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

Thank you, I was just pointing out the technicalities against his argument. While you can indeed argue all presidents even those born before the Revolution were Natural Born citizens. Those born before the revolution were still born before our independence. So I decided to test to make sure they would qualify under Mr. Paige’s definition (by their parents’ status) if they qualify under his two natural born parents definition. Jefferson and Jackson would not have two natural born parents. They would not qualify under this birther’s definition even though both were born here.

Also had to name drop those who were born after the constitution with one parent that was not a Natural Born citizen to show him how wrong he was. I wonder if he knew about Buchanan and Hughes?

Slartibartfast:
While your comment shows outstanding scholarship, I think you are incorrect (or at least not completely correct) on this point.As is clear from my comment above, I believe that all of our presidents were considered to have been (natural) born citizens of the United States even if they were born before the Revolution.

Well, I used to believe in Santa Claus. The government of the United States, in all three of its branches, EMPHATICALLY disagrees with you. Geez, did you bother to look?

H. Brooke Paige: As to your “citizen at birth” and other conditions – I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment makes children born in country to non-citizens (one or two) “citizens naturalized at birth” by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment provisions. While “citizens of the United States” who are not “nbC”(s) are made so by the law, “NbC”s are born into their citizenship and need no law to inherit their legacy.

No, that ain’t why they did it. Didn’t bother to look that one up either, did you?

H. Brooke Paige: First when the Constitution was enacted the nation had no “natural born Citizens”, it could not – it had to wait until its citizens made them – this is why the “or” citizens at the time of the Adoption…” phrase had to be included so the nation could have citizens eligible to serve as President until such time as individuals could be born in the country to its citizens and reach the required age to serve.

When I come here I am truly attempting to” fish for gold in a bucket of mud!”

“The Looker” still is trying to say that I expect the parents to be “nbC”(s) in order for the children to be “natural born Citizens”.. I AM NOT – all that is required is for the parents to be “citizens of the United States” when the child is born (I am assuming the child is born in country). This part should not be that difficult to understand!

H. Brooke Paige:
When I come here I am truly attempting to” fish for gold in a bucket of mud!”

“The Looker”still is trying to say that I expect the parents to be “nbC”(s) in order for the children to be “natural born Citizens”.. I AM NOT – all that is required is for the parents to be “citizens of the United States” when the child is born (I am assuming the child is born in country). This part should not be that difficult to understand!

Then both Buchanan and Arthur don’t make the cut (both of their father were not citizens). Neither does Hayes. Nor do Hoover or Wilson, both were foreign born parents and had to gain it by marriage at best. Buchanan was a duo citizen of UK and US by virtue of his father as were many of the founding fathers by virtue of the very law used for impressment.

Jefferson and Jackson are not excused either since their foreign born parents died before they renounced it. Jackson’s mom worked for the British VOLUNTEERINGLY, Mr. Page. I doubt she would turn over her British citizenship and daddy dearest died before Jackson was ever born. Neither renounced it. Thanks to Jefferson’s mom died before independence and there is no indication she was on board of independence. Thus they don’t make your cut of being citizens. James Sr. could only qualify when he married his wife, but even then. He did not renounce his British Citizenship. According to you, Mr. Page, you cannot be a citizen with duo-citizenship. Guess what. James Buchanan had two citizenship. Buchanan’s dad from what I can tell did not become an actual citizen. You need to take the oath [Pennsylvania’s state Constitution dictate’s] neither was Spirow Agnew’s dad see http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/spiro-agnew.html for details. Arthur’s dad as established waited fourteen years to be a citizen, yet Arthur like Buchanan was not a citizen up the son’s birth. I don’t know the status of the mothers of Hoover and Wilson, so I am researching them, but I doubt it. Grandfathering in is only for those before the Revolution not after, guess what. Two examples of after before John Tyler; Van Buren and Zachary Taylor as Presidents. Richard Mentor Johnson, John C Calhoun, William Rufus King as VP’s. Patrick Calhoun (John C Calhoun’s dad), was born in Ireland. You getting this. Patrick’s past is bit unknown.

Hey Dr. Conspiracy, how’s the research on the Citizenship of James Buchanan Sr.’s citizenship. Can I ask for the citizenship records of Patrick Calhoun, William King, Margaret deVane, Martha Caldwell, Maria Hoes Van Alen Van Buren, Robert Johnson, Jemima Suggett, Jessie Janet Woodrow, William Arthur, Hulda Randall Minthorn, Rev. David C. Hughes, Mary C. Connelly, Margaret Ann Terpenning and William Connelly. That way this guy knows who wasn’t a citizen when the president was born.

This guy’s idiocy is bothering me. Arthur’s dad was not a citizen when he was born so there’s that. Buchanan Sr. looks like another case.

That is an unsupportable conclusion. There are no statutes guiding the ‘naturalization of such children’ unlike for those born abroad to US citizens for example. Did you fail to study US v Wong Kim Ark? They addressed this issue and several courts since then have also rejected this interpretation.

Scalia is one of various Supreme Court justices who do not appear to agree with Paige

Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.

[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

As I said, the Supreme Court will not even grant cert for this issue, well settled in law.

H. Brooke Paige: all that is required is for the parents to be “citizens of the United States” when the child is born (I am assuming the child is born in country). This part should not be that difficult to understand!

I understand you are saying that. And I know that your statement here contradicts statements you made above (see your case ‘c’).

I also know that SCOTUS determined otherwise 116 years ago. And that’s that.

You’re free to keep trying to get SCOTUS to reconsider the issue, but unless you have one heckuva urgent reason, don’t expect them to waste much time contemplating what would be a very disruptive (and enteirly unnecessary, yea, even unAmerican, IMO) step.

Double-in-the-meantime, stop pretending the law is either unclear or other than what it actually is. Thanks!

Sef:
Mr. Paige, I would like your take on the following conundrum: You (or most likely, Apuzzo) have focused your citizenship requirements on those of the President. The Constitution also says that Congressmen, Senators, Justices must be Citizens of the United States. The ONLY way to become a U.S. Citizen that was Constitutionally prescribed until the 14th Amendment was in force was through the enactment of naturalization laws. Clearly, no one would even have been constitutionally eligible for the First Congress if there were not an understanding that Common Law provided for citizenship for these people (there is no grandfather escape clause for anyone but President). How do you explain this?

OK, I readily confess that this is an area of subject matter I have not studied and is certainly worth exploring. Since I am dealing with a critical audience here I prefer not to speculate!

Slartibartfast:
While your comment shows outstanding scholarship, I think you are incorrect (or at least not completely correct) on this point.As is clear from my comment above, I believe that all of our presidents were considered to have been (natural) born citizens of the United States even if they were born before the Revolution.

If you are interested I would be pleased to send you my “Our Forgotten Presidents and the Evolution of the Office of President of the United States” Which examines our nations first fourteen Presidents who served before General George Washington, our fifteenth President and the first to serve under the Constitution of the United States in 1789. Send me a note with your address and I will send you a copy.

H. Brooke Paige: OK, I readily confess that this is an area of subject matter I have not studied and is certainly worth exploring. Since I am dealing with a critical audience here I prefer not to speculate!

The idea that there were no US Citizens prior to the Constitution is absurd because not only must Senators and House members be citizens, they must have been so a number of years. And what about the (gasp) president?

At the beginning of our country, citizenship was state citizenship, and when the states united, the citizens of the country were those who were citizens of the states who formed it. The citizens of the states were those who were born there or who had naturalized prior to the the federalization of naturalization under the Constitution.

James Madison, who is recognized as the principal author of the US Constitution, engaged in a debate over the citizenship of a Mr. Smith who was elected to the First Congress from South Carolina, but challenged as not having been a citizen the requisite number of years. Mr. Madison stated that if there were a law in South Carolina addressing exactly who was a citizen of that state and when, then that law would determine Smith’s status, but as there was none, Madison appealed to more general principals. Madison spoke,

Mr. Smith was, on the declaration of independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that he has forfeited that right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this House….

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

What was the situation of the people of America, when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign. … What was the allegiance, as a citizen of South Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a king of that society to which, as a society, he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act, and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up; because it was through his membership of the society of South Carolina that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.

The entire citation (which is lengthy) is here and it is filled with relevant material.

If the membership of Congress is not enough to convince you that United States citizenship predated the meeting of the first Congress, let me present you with another conundrum, George Washington. How could he have been a “natural born Citizen” or “Citizen of the United States at the Time of the Adoption of this Constitution” if there were no citizens until Congress defined it? And the problem with Washington is even more challenging because on the date that the Constitution was adopted, Washington’s own state of Virginia had not yet ratified it! If Washington were not already a citizen before the Constitution was adopted, then he was not eligible to be president.

H. Brooke Paige: OK, I readily confess that this is an area of subject matter I have not studied and is certainly worth exploring. Since I am dealing with a critical audience here I prefer not to speculate!

Brooke, I made a post earlier about Vattel’s Section 214. You never addressed that. I would like to ask you if you would please read Vattel’s Section 214 and compare it to Title VIII, U.S. Code, Section 1401 and tell me what you find? Thank you. (I would also appreciate it if you would just read my post about Section 214 above, I made a small typo in it which was later corrected, but, I think it’s important). Thank you in advance.

First when the Constitution was enacted the nation had no “natural born Citizens”

Sincerely,
H. Brooke Paige

Mr. Paige,

During the New York Ratifying Convention (which included both John Jay and Alexander Hamilton as delegates) several resolutions were put forth to amend the Constitution. One that didn’t make into the NY Convention’s final documents had the following:

“the counsellors should have a reasonable allowance for their services, fixed by a standing law; and that no man should be elected a counsellor who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and who is not either a natural-born citizen, or has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776.”

A second resolution that did make it into the ratifying document says,

“That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six“

Apparently, the delegates believed there were individuals who were citizens before July 4th, 1776.

Who would the delegates consider as having qualifed as a citizen before July 4th, 1776?

If the people who qualified as citizen before July 4th, 1776 had children before July 4th, 1776, would the children (assuming they were born in the colonies) be considered natural born citizens? If not, why not?

Many in the American Colonies DID NOT support the revolution (I have heard the argument made that a “silent” majority looked for reconciliation) – KIng George III had enraged the colonies by various laws and regulation which offended many prominent leaders in the colonies and in time lead to the Revolution.

As to section 214,

“A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a stranger, the quality of a citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization There are states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a stranger all the rights of the citizen; for example, that of possessing places of trust, and consequently where he has the power of granting only imperfect naturalization. It is here (in Switzerland) a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland , the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation represented by its deputies, In England however, being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”

The last sentence is basically the same as citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. I would point out that in England Subjecthood did not (and today does not) provide the right (or privilege) to serve in the House of Lords or as Royalty (i.e. King or Queen).

I believe that the founders wished to assure loyalty and not royalty, in those individuals chosen to serve as President and Commander in Chief – and in the end decided that the best way to insure undivided loyalty, trustworthiness and a special attachment to the nation and the people was to require the officeholder(s) to possess the qualities of “natural born Citizen[ship]”, maturity (attaining the age of 25 years) and familiarity with the country and its people (14 years residency).

During the Constitutional Convention various structural schemes were discussed for the Office of President. (Under the “Articles” the only conditions, qualifications if you like, were that the President was selected from and by the members of the Continental Congress and the term of service was for only one year out of every three.)
During the debate the Framers considered (and rejected) a triune Presidency (with members representing each region of the nation: north, south and west) with decisions settled by the majority; an officeholder selected by the Senate (from all “citizens”, leaving the individual’s credentials to the Senate’s discretion); various terms of service from twenty years to as few as three or possibly “during (a term of ) good behavior” with or without “re-eligibility.” In time they came to view the early proposals as nearly creating a monarchy – due to the Senatorial selection and the lengthy term of service, In the end, they agreed on a Presidency with a single individual selected by a process that combined representation of the sovereign States and the citizen population at large through the use of Electors (in time evolving into the Electoral College process the nation uses today). They viewed this process as open to intrigue and influence of foreign and alien forces and sought to establish qualifications to safeguard against such dangers through the qualifications and process discussed above.

I am sure I have not fully answered you question, if I can further explain my position- please ask again. I am obviously not a constitutional scholar, just a fellow citizen attempting to do what I believe is right.

In section 214, Vattel is explicitly telling you that section 212 is NOT APPLICABLE to Anglo-American systems.

Vattel himself is explicitly telling you that your understanding of what his writings is TOTALLY wrong.

You have not addressed section 214 in any way. What you have done is mention it in a sentence and then proceed to disgorge a large word salad that has nothing to do with owning up to the consequences of what Vattel is telling you in that section.

If you can’t even discuss it like an adult on a casual web site, how on earth do you imagine you can convince a judge at any level of the system that your interpretation merits overturning 118 years of settled law?

Dr. Conspiracy: The idea that there were no US Citizens prior to the Constitution is absurd because not only must Senators and House members be citizens, they must have been so a number of years. And what about the (gasp) president?

At the beginning of our country, citizenship was state citizenship, and when the states united, the citizens of the country were those who were citizens of the states who formed it. The citizens of the states were those who were born there or who had naturalized prior to the the federalization of naturalization under the Constitution.

Statement to this effect can be found in the Journal of the Continental Congress, Volume V, June 1776. Congress, in order to define who should be prosecuted for treason as a part of recommending that the colonies adopt statutes for prosecuting treason, defined who were considered citizens of the colonies, who owed allegiance to them.

Essentially, if you were residing in one of the colonies and deriving protection from that colony’s gov’t, you best not be aiding the British. Based on other readings, I’d say there was a whole lot of treason going on by this definition. But it was a civil war, and control was fluid.

You are correct (and I thought I said, at one point in all of this) that citizenship, in the Revolutionary era was acquired by the citizens themselves by rejecting their subjecthood, supporting the revolution, the “Declaration”, the first republic design of the “Articles”, you are certainly correct that for those who immediately embraced these elements (or claimed to have done so) of “citizenship” could trace their commitment back to July 4th, 1776 (and for some April 18, 1775.) and therefore it was not problematic for Senators and Members of the House to meet the citizenship requirements.

H. Brooke Paige: The outcomes are:
a – born in country to two citizen parents
b – born in country to at least one citizen parent
c – born in country without regard to parental citizenship
d – born to two citizen parents without regard to place of birth
e – born to at least one citizen parent without regard to place of birth
f – “citizen of the United States” = “natural born Citizen”
g – citizenship not required
h – no conditions what-so-ever*

By the numbers (letters, actually):

a – Yes
b – Yes
c – Yes
d – Yes
e – Sometimes. US law recognizes specific qualifications regarding the age and length of time of US residency for the citizen parent.
f – No. The terms are not synonymous. “Natural born citizen” is an exclusive subset of the inclusive superset “citizen of the United States.” The superset also includes the exclusive subset “naturalized citizens.”
g – No.
h – No.

The Supreme Court of the United States traditionally has neither the interest nor the imperative to slay again the already slain. There is no case or controversy here worthy of their attention.

H. Brooke Paige: I am obviously not a constitutional scholar, just a fellow citizen attempting to do what I believe is right.

Sincerely,

Brooke

Your last sentence, Mr. Paige, begs the question: Why have you not felt compelled to “do what is right” in the past regarding presidential candidates? If you feel so strongly about your theory regarding natural born citizen, why have you not in the past demanded that presidential candidates prove not only their birthplace but their parentage?

Taking it one step further, have you asked any of the state of VT candidates to prove their eligibility for their elected/appointed positions?

H. Brooke Paige: You are correct (and I thought I said, at one point in all of this) that citizenship, in the Revolutionary era was acquired by the citizens themselves by rejecting their subjecthood, supporting the revolution, the “Declaration”, the first republic design of the “Articles”, you are certainly correct that for those who immediately embraced these elements (or claimed to have done so) of “citizenship” could trace their commitment back to July 4th, 1776 (and for some April 18, 1775.) and therefore it was not problematic for Senators and Members of the House to meet the citizenship requirements.

I have ancestors who came to America from Scotland in 1601 upon invitation to settle the land. What if they just did nothing but farmed their land? Is that a commitment? Just curious.

Keith: You have not addressed section 214 in any way. What you have done is mention it in a sentence and then proceed to disgorge a large word salad that has nothing to do with owning up to the consequences of what Vattel is telling you in that section.

This is absolutely correct.

Vattel states in Section 212 that natives (those born in a country) are Natural Born Citizens and after adding gibberish about a father’s national citizenry which does NOT pertain to our country, he then goes on to state in 214 that some countries accept that their citizens include anyone born in the land (Jus Soli). Title VIII U.S. Code Section 1401 states a citizen is first and foremost (example a) anyone born in this country. Barack Obama was born in this country, thus, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

realist: Your last sentence, Mr. Paige, begs the question:Why have you not felt compelled to “do what is right” in the past regarding presidential candidates?If you feel so strongly about your theory regarding natural born citizen, why have you not in the past demanded that presidential candidates prove not only their birthplace but their parentage?

Taking it one step further, have you asked any of the state of VT candidates to prove their eligibility for their elected/appointed positions?

Those are the questions that make a birther bigot dance hoping to distract you from their true motives.

Vattel states in Section 212 that natives (those born in a country) are Natural Born Citizens and after adding gibberish about a father’s national citizenry which does NOT pertain to our country, he then goes on to state in 214 that some countries accept that their citizens include anyone born in the land (Jus Soli). Title VIII U.S. Code Section 1401 states a citizen is first and foremost (example a) anyone born in this country. Barack Obama was born in this country, thus, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

Mr. Paige and his ilk simply refuse to address Paragraph 214. It is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

bgansel9: Sorry, I was not applying the legalistic term, but rather the layman’s term. IANAL. Perhaps I should have said Fruitless instead.

IANAL either; rather, I’m an electrical engineer. I never saw the issue as moot. We have people who we assign the task of choosing the President. On the grounds advocated by Mr. Paige and Mr. Apuzzo not a single member of Congress spoke up. Since there have been challenges in the past, it should give one pause that a theory you advocate is so out of whack that you can’t even persuade one member of Congress, say Mr. Stockman or Mr. Gohmert, to stand up. If Birthers spent any time in researching, they would have found that challenging the selection of Pres. Obama in Congress is exactly where the Founding Fathers, influenced by Vattel or not, decided that the issue ought to be decided.

You are correct (and I thought I said, at one point in all of this) that citizenship, in the Revolutionary era was acquired by the citizens themselves by rejecting their subjecthood, supporting the revolution, the “Declaration”, the first republic design of the “Articles”, you are certainly correct that for those who immediately embraced these elements (or claimed to have done so)of “citizenship” couldtrace their commitment back to July 4th, 1776 (and for some April 18, 1775.) and therefore it was not problematic for Senators and Members of the House to meet the citizenship requirements.

realist: Your last sentence, Mr. Paige, begs the question:Why have you not felt compelled to “do what is right” in the past regarding presidential candidates?If you feel so strongly about your theory regarding natural born citizen, why have you not in the past demanded that presidential candidates prove not only their birthplace but their parentage?

Taking it one step further, have you asked any of the state of VT candidates to prove their eligibility for their elected/appointed positions?

In Vermont Title 17, the election code, and the Vermont Constitution set very modest requirements for those seeking office, usually state citizenship only – achieved by taking the “freeman’s oath”. Some offices have a modest term of citizenship required before serving, in the case of Governor – two years. Therefore it is rare to find a candidate who fails to meet the eligibility requirements for state offices. Additionally, most candidates are long term citizens (freemen, residents, inhabitants) an so their qualifications are not in question.

In 2012; when I submitted my petitions to the Secretary of State, Jim Condos, for inclusion on the Vermont primary ballot for U.S. Senate, I included a letter from the Town Clerk verifying my residency, when I took the Freeman’s Oath, the fact that I regularly attend and participate in Town Meetings and promptly pay my taxes (she also decided to point out that I was chosen “citizen of the year in 2004″). I also included copies of my Birth Certificate and Certificate of Live Birth (a real one with my little hand and foot prints as well as my mother’s thumb print) to verify that I qualified as a “citizen of the United States”, in fact those documents include information sufficient to prove that I am a “natural born Citizen” since they demonstrate that I was born in country (New Orleans, Louisiana ) to two citizen parents (the document actually verifies that my parents were both born in this country (father: Clayton Georgia and mother: Pottstown, Pennsylvania). These documents were certified, photographic copies not computer scans – none of that photoshop cut and stuff here.

In fact it was when I was filing my petitions early June of 2012, that I enquired with the Director of Elections what the procedures were for questioning (challenging) the petitions of candidates and was directed to the Vermont Superior Courts, explaining that the Secretary of State’s Office of Election had only a ministerial relationship with the election process – this began my ballot challenge adventure.

Here in Vermont we had not one, but four, presidential and vice presidential candidates who failed to meet one or more of the constitutional qualifications in the 2012 election. Those candidates were (in alphabetical order) Peta Lindsey, Barack Obama, Yari Osorio and Luis Rodriguez – three failed to meet the “natural born Citizen” definition (i.e. born in country to two citizen parents) Osorio was born in Columbia to two Columbian citizen parents AND two candidates Lindsey and Osorio failed to meet the 35 years of age requirement – all appeared on the 2102 Vermont Presidential Ballot.

This is one of the issues raised in my Ballot Challenge, that the State has no mechanism for preventing unqualified candidates from appearing on the ballot and in the 2016 the problem WILL again arise as (at least) Lindsey and Osorio have already announced their candidacy and surely some of the Republican non-”natural born Citizens” will appear on the Vermont Primary Ballot – Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, Governor Haley and/or Governor Jindal (and who knows maybe Mickey Mouse and the infamous Ham Sandwich). There is no controlling authority over the ballot in Vermont since the Courts refuse to exercise their Title 17 responsibility.

So you are correct before 2012, I did not attempt to prevent unqualified candidates from appearing on the Vermont Ballot – should I have, probably however in 2008 I was commuting to Philadelphia weekly and working over 70 – 80 hours a week running my retail businesses.

I see some of you are very critical of the Burlington Free Press article – One comment says “shoddy journalism” I think not.! Mr. Hemingway merely presented the facts (including the now well worn comment about my loss in the Vermont Primary 2012) apparently the writer was in angered that Hemingway did not revert to the all to often “new era” practice of editorializing in a news story. Hemingway is just practicing the “old school” reporting technique – “just the facts !”

bgansel9: Youhave not answered my question, I asked you to compare Vattel’s Section 214 to Title VIII U.S. Code, Section 1401.

You want me to compare and contrast Title VIII and Vattel’s 214 – are you kidding me!

Nowhere in Title VIII, Section 1401 is the definition of a “natural born Citizen” addressed only “Nationals” and Citizens of the United States at Birth”

8 U.S.CODE § 1401 – NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES AT BIRTH (1934, AS AMMENDED)

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Source
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301,66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3,Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3,Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12,Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a),Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)

Amendments

1994—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103–416added subsec. (h).
1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.
1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–432, § 3, struck out “(a)” before “The following” and redesignated pars. (1) to (7) as (a) to (g), respectively.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–432, § 1, struck out subsec. (b) which provided that any person who was a national or citizen of the United States under subsec. (a)(7) lose his nationality or citizenship unless he be continuously physically present in the United States for a period of not less than two years between the ages of 14 and 28 or that the alien parent be naturalized while the child was under 18 years of age and the child began permanent residence in the United States while under 18 years of age and that absence from the United States of less than 60 days not break the continuity of presence.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 95–432, § 1, struck out subsec. (c) which provided that former subsec. (b) apply to persons born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, except that this not be construed to alter the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934 who, prior to the effective date of this chapter, had taken up residence in the United States before attaining 16 years of age, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, complied with the residence requirements of section 201(g) and (h) of the Nationality Act of 1940.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 95–432, § 1, struck out subsec. (d) which provided that nothing in former subsec. (b) be construed to alter the citizenship of any person who came into the United States prior to Oct. 27, 1972, and who, whether before or after Oct. 27, 1972, immediately following such coming complied with the physical presence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in former subsec. (b), prior to amendment of former subsec. (b) by Pub. L. 92–584.
1972—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 92–584, § 1, substituted provisions that nationals and citizens of the United States under subsec. (a)(7), lose such status unless they are present continuously in the United States for two years between the ages of fourteen and twenty eight years, or the alien parent is naturalized while the child is under the age of eighteen years and the child begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years, and that absence from the United States of less than sixty days will not break the continuity of presence, for provisions that such status would be lost unless the nationals and citizens come to the United States prior to attaining twenty three years and be present continuously in the United States for five years, and that such presence should be between the age of fourteen and twenty eight years.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 92–584, § 3, added subsec. (d). 1966—Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 89–770authorized periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization by the citizen parent, or any periods during which the citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization, to be included in order to satisfy the physical presence requirement, and permitted the proviso to be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952.
Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Chapter effective 180 days after June 27, 1952, see section 407 of act June 27, 1952, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.
Waiver of Retention Requirements

Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(b),Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306, provided that: “Any provision of law (including section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1401 (b)] (as in effect before October 10, 1978), and the provisos of section 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940 [former 8 U.S.C. 601 (g)]) that provided for a person’s loss of citizenship or nationality if the person failed to come to, or reside or be physically present in, the United States shall not apply in the case of a person claiming United States citizenship based on such person’s descent from an individual described in section 301(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by subsection (a)).”
Retroactive Application of 1994 Amendment

Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(c),Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306, provided that:
“(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 25, 1994]) as though the amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section], and subsection (b) [enacting provisions set out above], had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes [former 8 U.S.C. 6] (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)).
“(2) The retroactive application of the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), shall not confer citizenship on, or affect the validity of any denaturalization, deportation, or exclusion action against, any person who is or was excludable from the United States under section 212(a)(3)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(3)(E)) (or predecessor provision) or who was excluded from, or who would not have been eligible for admission to, the United States under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 [former 50 App. U.S.C. 1951 et seq.] or under section 14 of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 [former 50 App. U.S.C. 1971l].”

Applicability of Transmission Requirements

Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(d),Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306, as amended by Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, § 671(b)(1),Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–721, provided that: “This section [amending this section and enacting provisions set out above], the amendments made by this section, and any retroactive application of such amendments shall not effect the application of any provision of law relating to residence or physical presence in the United States for purposes of transmitting United States citizenship to any person whose claim is based on the amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] or through whom such a claim is derived.”
Admission of Alaska as State

Alaska Statehood provisions as not conferring, terminating, or restoring United States nationality, see section 21 ofPub. L. 85–508, July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 339, set out as a note preceding former section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Maybe it is hidden in a secret code known only to you folks here at the OBAMACONSPIRACY website. Could you send along the magic decoder ring so I can play along ! Pretty Please !

sfjeff:
Mr. Paige.
You seem to believe that any definition of NBC other than your own needs to be confirmed by the Supreme Court.
But- how did anyone know that any President was a Natural Born Citizen?
You assume that your definition is correct- but if we use the same criteria for your definition as you demand for the commonly accepted definition- then we have no definition at all.
It is well known that the commonly accepted definition of NBC is anyone born in the United States with the known exceptions.
Virtually everyone in the United States accepts this- and that is why there has never been any real challenge to Presidential eligibility.
So how did anyone know who was eligible the 43 times before Obama?

Is it mere chance that every President and Vice President (with the one deviation I have mentioned previously) has been a “natural born Citizen” in the classic Vattelian sense – that is “born in country to two citizen parents”?

I think not! I believe that most people understood that this definition was the applied standard and chose to look the other way to allow this charismatic young Chicago politician special dispensation in order to have our first minority
President. If the majority truly wished the pool of citizens eligible for the office to be expanded then an effort should have been made to amend the Constitution – not just ignore it and make excuses after the fact.

It frightens me that this fellow now acts with reckless disregard for the Constitution, but why not nobody seems to give a damn about following it anymore!

Have you considered why Chief Justice Fuller in Wong Kim Ark, in dissent, says that the result of the case is that “Mongrels” (including Mr. Wong) can now become President? Doesn’t it sound as if the Chief Justice thought that the decision meant Mr. Wong was a natural born Citizen?

And have you bothered to look at a contemporary dictionary as of the date the constitution was adopted where “natural born” expressly means “native born”?

I ask because your lawyer has avoided both issues in his cert. petition for you while pretending Wong Kim Ark helps your case and that “natural born” means something secret and elaborate. (Apuzzo’s citation to Heller v. U.S. is particularly disingenuous since Justice Scalia says the contemporary meaning of the words is what to use. Apuzzo ignores the contemporary meaning as do you. It’s available. All you have to do is look in an 18th century dictionary. And the most recent 26 volume Oxford Dictionary of the English Language has the history all laid out if you would bother to look. But that would upset your b.s. arguments.)

There’s no need to go back to some of the Founders’ speeches (ambiguous as they are) or Vattel, translating section 212 (but not 214) into English to find a phrase Vattel didn’t use.

The intellectual dishonesty is stunning. I think it’s a case of melanin derangement syndrome.

Paige writes: Is it mere chance that every President and Vice President (with the one deviation I have mentioned previously) has been a “natural born Citizen” in the classic Vattelian sense – that is “born in country to two citizen parents”?

I just get tired of you folks piling on to Mario Apuzzo, especially the vile low life comments some of you folks reduce yourselves to! (not the one printed above!)

Mario is truly a wonderful fellow a dedicated patriot fighting to maintain the rule of law and the principles of the Constitution, I understand that most of you do not respect him and I happen to know that the feelings are mutual.

Some here have intimated that Mario somehow duped me in to becoming involved in this chaos, this is simply NOT TRUE. I sought him out only after I could not find competent willing counsel (for fee) in the Vermont Bar. Mr. Apuzzo has worked this case, assisting me within the rules of Vermont Law AND now represents me before SCOTUS – without fee.

By the way, he is also a cheerful and friendly fellow, attributes you folks will never experience in him!

So lots try to keep to the facts and ease off on the name calling and mud slinging!

First, your count is off. The number is 2, not 1. And given that most people in the United States have citizen parents (especially the well-connected people that can run for president) I don’t find the number at all odd.

H. Brooke Paige: Is it mere chance that every President and Vice President (with the one deviation I have mentioned previously) has been a “natural born Citizen” in the classic Vattelian sense – that is “born in country to two citizen parents”?

H. Brooke Paige: Nowhere in Title VIII, Section 1401 is the definition of a “natural born Citizen” addressed only “Nationals” and Citizens of the United States at Birth”

Vattel tells you in section 212 that natives are Natural Born Citizens, and then states in 214 that some countries use Jus Soli instead of Jus Sanguine to define citizenry. For once Vattel actually HAS the answer, but you refuse to look at it. If Title VIII U.S. Code Section 1401 (a) states first and formost (in the very first description, which covers MOST citizens and rightly so) that a citizen is one who is born on U.S. Soil, how can he NOT be a Natural Born Citizen?

I assume you are not because your research is limited. You will also not find any contemporary articles that suggest that Minor v Happersett ruled anything with regard to the definition of natural born citizen.

H. Brooke Paige: By the way, he is also a cheerful and friendly fellow, attributes you folks will never experience in him!

Actually, when I originally came to this site, I got an education on the natural-born citizen issue by reading the comments going on between Mario and several posters who were poking holes in his misconceptions about American history and citizenship laws. My first comment on this blog was to compliment Mario on his good humor and lack of ire.

So I don’t doubt that Mario can be a cheerful and friendly fellow in person. I’ve imagined that, putting aside all talk of Obama, he might be fun to have a beer with–because he’s such a magnificent bull-sh#ter. The fact that Mario has a pleasant side doesn’t mitigate the fact that he’s wrong, has been wrong, and has been proven wrong, not just here, but in the courts, in the halls of Congress, and at the ballot box. The fact that he persists in spouting discredited b.s. suggests, that underneath that cheery exterior, there is something really broken in his personality.

My first (and only) direct contact with Apuzzo was to email him 5 years ago and tell him his interpretation of Perkins v. Elg was wrong because he was claiming that Ms. Elg’s mother was a U.S. citizen and the opinion never reported that to be the case.

Apuzzo came back with some b.s. about the mother’s citizenship following that of her husband, claiming that when she came to the U.S. with her husband and he naturalized so did she.

Well, that wasn’t in the opinion, either. How do we know she came over with her husband and stayed?

I realized from that brief encounter that Apuzzo was a master bullshiner and he hasn’t disappointed since.

He’s never dealt with the dissent in Wong Kim Ark, never responded to section 214 of Vattel’s compendium and never been able to explain why “natural born” meant “native born” in the 1790s.

Apuzzo just ignores those troublesome little details and declares victory.

H. Brooke Paige: You want me to compare and contrast Title VIII and Vattel’s 214 – are you kidding me!

Having challenged Mr. Paige to discuss Vattel’s paragraph 214 earlier today, this is the full extent of what we got.

Mr. Paige. Don’t discuss 214 for me. Do it for yourself. If you actually get Supreme Court review, something the lawyers here think unlikely, surely Justice Scalia will ask that question. You will have a prepared answer, right? Don’t tell us that you are going to tell Justice Scalia “are you kidding me.”

So stop the word dumps from the statutes and other sources. Write a nice little response which says, Vattel in paragraph 214 says X, and here is why it doesn’t apply.

John Reilly: Do it for yourself. If you actually get Supreme Court review, something the lawyers here think unlikely, surely Justice Scalia will ask that question. You will have a prepared answer, right? Don’t tell us that you are going to tell Justice Scalia “are you kidding me.”

Mario should have done it when he had the opportunity make his argument before a judge. As it happened, he was woefully under-prepared and came off like a student trying to fake his way through an oral exam.

H. Brooke Paige: Is it mere chance that every President and Vice President (with the one deviation I have mentioned previously) has been a “natural born Citizen” in the classic Vattelian sense – that is “born in country to two citizen parents”?

This is pure rubbish and I told you so many times before.

What Vattel says is that citizenship is inherited from parents in general (group plural) and in the next sentence, he goes on to say it is transmitted by the father (one parent), which was later amended to include the mother for children born out of wedlock.

There is no such thing about “two citizens parents” in Vattel.

There is 200+ years of scholarship on Vattel in France, Switzerland, etc. I have challenged your con artist of an attorney before to find one single scholarly French source that would conform with his bizarre interpretation.

He couldn’t find any, because there are NONE.

What we have here is a monolingual second-rate American attorney thoroughly unfamiliar with French law and French language rendering an opinion that contradicts both French syntax and 200+ year of French scholarship on the topic; and when one experienced French attorney (myself) tells you you’re being conned, you refuse to listen because you’re too blinded by your prejudices.

Lupin: What we have here is a monolingual second-rate American attorney

Now there you go again… maligning honest second-rate American Attorneys. What have you got against these honest, hard working, vital functionaries. Without 2nd rate attorneys, the first-rate attorneys would be working their backsides off 20 hours a day 7 days a week. When would they play golf for crying out loud?

Lupin: There is 200+ years of scholarship on Vattel in France, Switzerland, etc. I have challenged your con artist of an attorney before to find one single scholarly French source that would conform with his bizarre interpretation.

He couldn’t find any, because there are NONE.

In fact, I’ve always challenged birthers to name one other source than Vattel that confirmed their crank theory, and they were unable to find one (except the well-known misreading of Minor vs. Happersett).

H. Brooke Paige: Is it mere chance that every President and Vice President (with the one deviation I have mentioned previously) has been a “natural born Citizen” in the classic Vattelian sense – that is “born in country to two citizen parents”?

By that logic, women aren’t eligible, nor are blacks, because no President or Vice President has ever been a woman, or black, with the one “deviation” that is currently in office.

You are trying to infer a legal rule or definition from the properties of a set of data points, that’s not how the law (or logic) works.

In fact, if you were an extraterrestrial trying to infer the eligibility requirements of US Presidents by looking at who has been US President, you could

1) rule out “two citizen parents” because neither Arthur nor Obama had them

2) rule out “white” because Obama isn’t white

3) not rule out “male” because no President was female

4) rule out “last name must not begin with ‘O'” because Obama’s does

That would be at least somehow scientific. You however claim that (1) doesn’t apply because somehow Arthur and Obama were “usurpers” who were magically elected despite everyone knowing what the eligibility requirements were.

In other words, your “scientific” method is “My argument is true because there are no exceptions except those I ignore”. *lol*

And even within your own pseudo-logical framework, you aren’t consistent because you don’t claim (2) and (4) don’t apply “because usurper”.

H. Brooke Paige: I just get tired of you folks piling on to Mario Apuzzo, especially the vile low life comments some of you folks reduce yourselves to! So lots (sic) try to keep to the facts and ease off on the name calling and mud slinging!

And I’m thankful you’re just a guest here on a private blog and you don’t make the rules.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mario Apuzzo March 16, 2009 at 1:26 am #

I have just had the pleasure to read your infantile comments on this blog. I hope that what you each had to say really inflated each of your lame egos. You guys/gals have got to be kidding me. You really should find another line of work, for no one with any degree of real intelligence can find anything of value in your current work.

Paige must be getting a new supply of words from Apuzzo. Maybe some really big and Latin words.

Not yet I have lots of words left in by Thesaurus and there is always my trusty old Funk and Wagnall’s – 1920 Students Standard Dictionary – so have no fear!

The Magic M (not logged in):

You are trying to infer a legal rule or definition from the properties of a set of data points, that’s not how the law (or logic) works.
…
In fact, if you were an extraterrestrial trying to infer the eligibility requirements of US Presidents by looking at who has been US President, you could

3)not rule out “male” because no President was female
(you are correct, however it is a work in progress)

4)rule out “last name must not begin with ‘O’” because Obama’s does
(since we are playing “Wheel”, Vanna still hasn’t revealed the letters “I”, “x”, ”y” or “z” either.)

Not quite sure what the point of this analysis is?

Sterngard Friegen:

Methinks you have forgotten Charles Curtis.

Vice President Charles Curtis (1929-1933) Born in Topeka, Kansas, January 25, 1860 – to Orren Curtus who was born in Eugene, Indiana and Elllen Pappan who was born on the Kaw Indian Reservation in the then Oklahoma Territory. So I am not quite sure if your point is that Charles was not born on U.S. soil which he obviously was, just not in a state OR that his mother was not a citizen because she was born on an Indian Reservation – which, most probably did not matter since before the Cable Act the citizenship of a husband was conveyed to his wife upon their marriage.

I am sorry I cannot keep up with all of your comments – It is a little lopsided here, what a dozen or so of you against the “old newsboy” PLUS I’ve only been “on the topic” since 2012 and most of you since 2008 or earlier!

Best Wishes, Brooke.

Postscript: I will get back to you when time permits OR as soon as SCOTUS accepts my Writ ! – It has been interesting !

Keith: Now there you go again… maligning honest second-rate American Attorneys. What have you got against these honest, hard working, vital functionaries. Without 2nd rate attorneys, the first-rate attorneys would be working their backsides off 20 hours a day 7 days a week. When would they play golf for crying out loud?

I assure you, Mario is no second-rate attorney.

You’re right. I unreservedly apologize to all second-rate attorneys for tarnishing their good names by comparing them To Mario Apuzzo.

H. Brooke Paige: Is it mere chance that every President and Vice President (with the one deviation I have mentioned previously) has been a “natural born Citizen” in the classic Vattelian sense – that is “born in country to two citizen parents”?

There is no “classic vattelian sense”. Vattel says nothing about two citizen parents this is the inference you have made through your misreading of Vattel. I’ll let a french jurist Lupin explain this to you. This has been explained enough times already.

John Reilly: I see Mr. Paige has been back, but as yet continues to REFUSE to discuss Vattel’s paragraph 214. Eventually what we will draw from that is Mr. Paige has no answer.

Paige is clearly incompetent to discuss Vattel’s writings in general. He has no knowledge of French (AFAIK) and certainly no knowledge of the evolution of French Nationality Law over the last 3 centuries.

He is being duped by his attorney, who is equally incompetent, but portrays himself as such.

Paige is dupe, a dunce, a sincere if gullible mark. He reminds me of Smike in NICHOLAS NICKLEBY.

H. Brooke Paige: Mario is truly a wonderful fellow a dedicated patriot fighting to maintain the rule of law and the principles of the Constitution, I understand that most of you do not respect him and I happen to know that the feelings are mutual.

You’re obviously posting satire now. Mario wouldn’t know what a patriot is nor what the rule of law is if it came up and slapped him in the face.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Mr. Paige here previously asking for advice from the legal experts on this site to help him develop his argument and was at that time told that he was not going to be successful? Why is he here again? Did he not get the message the first time his suit was sent down?

bgansel9: Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Mr. Paige here previously asking for advice from the legal experts on this site to help him develop his argument and was at that time told that he was not going to be successful? Why is he here again? Did he not get the message the first time his suit was sent down?

Yes I remember his last time here when we explained to him all his concerns. Last time he was told about US V Wong Kim Ark and the whole part about Natural born citizenship he claimed that America didn’t use “natural born subject” as referenced in English Common Law. I pointed out to him that in the Vermont State Consistution the term is used. After we explained everything to him last time he ran away only to return upon googling his name.

bgansel9: Did he not get the message the first time his suit was sent down?

Obviously not, because Paige seems quite gullible and frankly appears to be not very smart (at least in these matters – for all I know he could be a watercolor prodigy). Or perhaps I should stick to “naive”. The world simply doesn’t work the way Paige thinks it does.

For all their “smarts” (my dad used to belong to Mensa), my parents got taken in buy a con man 15 years ago, who took them for something like 15 or 20,000 euros (not a small sum) and they remained steadfastly impervious to any logical and good sense arguments that friends of the family and I tried to use to convince them they were being conned.

That’s why I recognize Paige’s behavior and his endless circular arguments and his genuine desire to find “the truth” no matter how idiotic his concerns are.

H. Brooke Paige: I believe that most people understood that this definition was the applied standard and chose to look the other way to allow this charismatic young Chicago politician special dispensation in order to have our first minority
President.

—–

Really? I think most people understood what we were all taught in school–that any of us born in the US could grow up to be President.

It’s a lousy, baseless, and prejudiced thing to say we chose to ignore the constitution to elect a minority candidate.

Given the opportunity to have the effect of Wong Kim Ark explained to me by a lawyer who specializes in drunk driving cases or the contemporary Chief Justice of the United States who dissented from the opinion, I’m not going with the DUI lawyer.

—-
This resort to the all-of–you against the “old newsboy” tactic reminds me of the old Caveman Lawyer routine on Saturday Night Live. You are not just an old newsboy, just like I am not just an old waitress–though that is how I started out.

You said here, “The principal issue for review is that of mootness…” Yet, you have refused to respond to my comments and Ballantine’s comments that go to the heart of the mootness doctrine, and the separation of powers between the state and federal constitutions/courts which you are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to violate.

There is a great deal of law and opinion relating to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the case came to define who was a “citizen of the United States” it did not relate to or reach defining who was a “natural born Citizen” – it could not!. One interesting element is that it did result in a definitive understanding that the United States, as far as citizenship was concerned – cast off and abdicated the English Common Law.

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 709.

“The framers of the Constitution were familiar with the distinctions between the Roman law and the feudal law, between obligations based on territoriality and those based on the personal and invisible character of origin, and there is nothing to show that, in the matter of nationality, they intended to adhere to principles derived from regal government, which they had just assisted in overthrowing. Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the Crown was thrown off and an independent government established, every rule of the common law and every statute of England obtaining in the Colonies in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded was abrogated.”

International Law. § 31
.
To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it — that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth, and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is, in its essence, dependent on descent.

The framers of the Constitution were familiar with the distinctions between the Roman law and the feudal law, between obligations based on territoriality and those based on the personal and invisible character of origin, and there is nothing to show that, in the matter of nationality, they intended to adhere to principles derived from regal government, which they had just assisted in overthrowing.
Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the Crown was thrown off and an independent government established, every rule of the common law and every statute of England obtaining in the Colonies in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded was abrogated.

The States, for all national purposes embraced in the Constitution, became one, united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws, but they retained their jurisdiction over all persons and things within their territorial limits except where surrendered to the General Government or restrained by the Constitution, and protection to life, liberty and property rested primarily with them. So far as the jus commune, or folk-right, relating to the rights of persons was concerned, the Colonies regarded it as their birthright, and adopted such parts of it as they found applicable to their condition. Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137.

They became sovereign and independent States, and when the Republic was created, each of the thirteen States had its own local usages, customs and common law, while, in respect of the National Government, there necessarily was no general, independent and separate common law of the United States, nor has there ever been. Wheaton v. Peter, 8 Pet. 591, 658.

As to the jura corona, including therein the obligation of allegiance, the extent to which these ever were applicable in this country depended on circumstances, and it would seem quite clear that the rulemaking locality of birth, the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.
Doubtless, before the latter event, in the progress of monarchical power, the rule which involved the principle of liege homage may have become the rule of Europe; but that idea never had any basis in the United States.

A Chief Justice Taney observed in Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 618,

It is true that most of the States have adopted the principles of English jurisprudence so far as it concerns private and individual rights. And when such rights are in question, we habitually refer to the English decisions not only with respect, but in many cases as authoritative. But in the distribution of political power between the great departments of government, there is such a wide difference between the power conferred on the President of the United States and the authority and sovereignty which belong to the English Crown that it would be altogether unsafe to reason from any supposed resemblance between them, either as regards conquest in war or any other subject where the rights and powers of the executive arm of the government are brought into question. Our own Constitution and form of government must be our only guide.

And Mr. Lawrence, in his edition of Wheaton (Lawrence’s Wheaton, p. 920), makes this comment:

There is, it is believed, as great a difference between the territorial allegiance claimed by an hereditary sovereign on feudal principles and the personal right of citizenship participated in by all the members of the political community, according to American institutions, as there is between the authority and sovereignty of the Queen of England and the power of the American President, and the inapplicability of English precedents is as clear in the one case as in the other. The same view, with particular application to naturalization, was early taken by the American commentator on Blackstone. Tucker’s Blackstone, Vol. 1, Pt. 2, Appx. p. 96.

Blackstone distinguished allegiance into two sorts, the one natural and perpetual, the other local and temporary. Natural allegiance, so-called, was allegiance resulting from birth in subjection to the Crown, and indelibility was an essential, vital and necessary characteristic.

The Royal Commission to inquire into the Laws of Naturalization and Allegiance was created May 21, 1868, and, in their report, the Commissioners, among other things, say:

The allegiance of a natural-born British subject is regarded by the Common Law as indelible. We are of opinion that this doctrine of the Common Law is neither reasonable nor convenient. It is at variance with those principles on which the rights and duties of a subject should be deemed to rest; it conflicts with that freedom of action which is now recognized as most conducive to the general good, as well as to individual happiness and prosperity, and it is especially inconsistent with the practice of a State which allows to its subjects absolute freedom of emigration.

However, the Commission, by a majority, declined to recommend the abandonment of the rule altogether, though “clearly of opinion that it ought not to be, as it now is, absolute and unbending;” but recommended certain modifications which were carried out in subsequent legislation.

But from the Declaration of Independence to this day, the United States have rejected the doctrine of indissoluble allegiance and maintained the general right of expatriation, to be exercised in subordination to the public interests and subject to regulation.

As early as the act of January 29, 1795, c. 20, 1 Stat. 414, applicants for naturalization were required to take not simply an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, but of absolute renunciation and abjuration of all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince or State, and particularly to the prince or State of which they were before the citizens or subjects.

The statute 3 Jac. 1, c. 4, provided that promising obedience to any other prince, State, or potentate subjected the person so doing to be adjudged a traitor, and to suffer the penalty of high treason, and in respect of the act of 1795, Lord Grenville wrote to our minister, Rufus King:

No British subject can, by such a form of renunciation as that which is prescribed in the American law of naturalization, divest himself of his allegiance to his sovereign. Such a declaration of renunciation made by any of the King’s subjects would, instead of operating as a protection to them, be considered an act highly criminal on their part.

2 Amer.St.Pap. 19. And see Fitch v. Weber, 6 Hare 51.

Nevertheless, Congress has persisted from 1795 in rejecting the English rule and in requiring the alien who would become a citizen of the United States, in taking on himself the ties binding him to our Government, to affirmatively sever the ties that bound him to any other.

The subject was examined at length in 1856, in an opinion given the Secretary of State by Attorney General Cushing, 8 Opins.Attys.Gen. 139, where the views of the writers on international law and those expressed in cases in the Federal and state courts are largely set forth, and the Attorney General says:

The doctrine of absolute and perpetual allegiance, the root of the denial of any right of emigration, is inadmissible in the United States. It was a matter involved in, and settled for us by, the Revolution which founded the American Union.
Moreover, the right of expatriation, under fixed circumstances of time and of manner, being expressly asserted in the legislatures of several of the States and confirmed by decisions of their courts, must be considered as thus made a part of the fundamental law of the United States.

Expatriation included not simply the leaving of one’s native country, but the becoming naturalized in the country adopted as a future residence. The emigration which the United States encouraged was that of those who could become incorporate with its people, make its flag their own, and aid in the accomplishment of a common destiny, and it was obstruction to such emigration that made one of the charges against the Crown in the Declaration.
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 460 (1813); Murray v. McCarty, 2 Munf. 393 (1811); Alsberry v. Hawkins, 9 Dana 177 (1839), are among the cases cited. In Ainslie v. Martin, the indelibility of allegiance according to the common law rule was maintained, while in Murray v. McCarty and Alberry v. Hawkins, the right of expatriation was recognized as a practical and fundamental doctrine of America. There was no uniform rule so far as the States were severally concerned, and none such assumed in respect of the United States.

In 1859, Attorney General Black thus advised the President (9 Op. 356):
The natural right of every free person who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place — the general right, in one word, of expatriation, is incontestable. I know that the common law of England denies it, that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it, and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same pinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.

In the opinion of the Attorney General, the United States, in recognizing the right of expatriation, declined from the beginning to accept the view that rested the obligation of the citizen on feudal principles, and proceeded on the law of nations, which was in direct conflict therewith.
And the correctness of this conclusion was specifically affirmed not many years after, when the right, as the natural and inherent right of all people and fundamental in this country, was declared by Congress in the act of July 27, 1838, 15 Stat. 223, c. 249, carried forward into sections 1999 and 2000 of the Revised Statutes, in 1874.

It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English common law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of the United States.
Whether it was also the rule at common law that the children of British subjects born abroad were themselves British subjects — nationality being attributed to parentage, instead of locality — has been variously determined. If this were so, of course, the statute of Edw. III was declaratory, as was the subsequent legislation. But if not, then such children were aliens, and the statute of 7 Anne and subsequent statutes must be regarded as, in some sort, acts of naturalization. On the other hand, it seems to me that the rule partus sequitur patrem has always applied to children of our citizens born abroad, and that the acts of Congress on this subject are clearly declaratory, passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings which might arise from the prevalence of the contrary rule elsewhere.

Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes provides that children so bornare declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.

Thus, a limitation is prescribed on the passage of citizenship by descent beyond the second generation if then surrendered by permanent non-residence, and this limitation was contained in all the acts from 1790 down. Section 217 provides that such children shall “be considered as citizens thereof.”

The language of the statute of 7 Anne, c. 5, is quite different in providing that the children of all natural-born subjects born out of the ligeance of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.
In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government. If not, and if the correct view is that they were aliens but collectively naturalized under the act of Congress which recognized them as natural-born, then those born since the Fourteenth Amendment are not citizens at all, unless they have become such by individual compliance with the general laws for the naturalization of aliens, because they are not naturalized “in the United States.”

By the fifth clause of the first section of article two of the Constitution, it is provided that:

No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

In the convention, it was, says Mr. Bancroft objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the office of President.

2 Bancroft Hist. U.S. Const. 193.

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not By the second clause of the second section of article one, it is provided that:

No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State of which he shall be chosen;

and, by the third clause of section three, that: No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

At that time, the theory largely obtained, as stated by Mr. Justice Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “that every citizen of a State is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.” § 1693.

Mr. Justice Curtis, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 576, expressed the opinion that, under the Constitution of the United States every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.

And he said:

Among the powers unquestionably possessed by the several States was that of determining what persons should and what persons should not be citizens. It was practicable to confer on the Government of the Union this entire power. It embraced what may, well enough for the purpose now in view, be divided into three parts. First: The power to remove the disabilities of alienage, either by special acts in reference to each individual case or by establishing a rule of naturalization to be administered and applied by the courts. Second: Determining what persons should enjoy the privileges of citizenship, in respect to the internal affairs of the several States. Third: What native-born persons should be citizens of the United States.

The first-named power, that of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, was granted, and here the grant, according to its terms, stopped. Construing a Constitution containing only limited and defined powers of government, the argument derived from this definite and restricted power to establish a rule of naturalization must be admitted to be exceedingly strong. I do not say it is necessarily decisive. It might be controlled by other parts of the Constitution. But when this particular subject of citizenship was under consideration, and, in the clause specially intended to define the extent of power concerning it, we find a particular part of this entire power separated from the residue and conferred on the General Government, there arises a strong presumption that this is all which is granted, and that the residue is left to the States and to the people. And this presumption is, in my opinion, converted into a certainty by an examination of all such other clauses of the Constitution as touch this subject.

But in that case, Mr. Chief Justice Taney said:

The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or anyone it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

Plainly, the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State thus pointed out involved then, as now, the complete rights of the citizen internationally, as contradistinguished from those of persons not citizens of the United States.

The English common law rule recognized no exception in he instance of birth during the mere temporary or accidental sojourn of the parents. As allegiance sprang from the place of birth regardless of parentage and supervened at the moment of birth, the inquiry whether the parents were permanently or only temporarily within the realm was wholly immaterial. And it is settled in England that the question of domicil is entirely distinct from that of allegiance. The one relates to the civil, and the other to the political, status. Udny v. Udny, L.R. 1 H.L.Sc. 441, 457.

But a different view as to the effect of permanent abode on nationality has been expressed in this country.

In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48, Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, said:

Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.

Undoubtedly all persons born in a country are presumptively citizens thereof, but the presumption is not irrebuttable.

If a stranger or traveler passing through, or temporarily residing in, this country, who has not himself been naturalized and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.

And to the same effect are the rulings of Mr. Secretary Frelinghuysen in the matter of Hausding, and Mr. Secretary Bayard in the matter of Greisser.

Hausding was born in the United States, went to Europe, and, desiring to return, applied to the minister of the United States for a passport, which was refused on the ground that the applicant was born of Saxon subjects temporarily in the United States. Mr. Secretary Frelinghuysen wrote to Mr. Kasson, our minister:
You ask “Can one born a foreign subject, but within the United States, make the option after his majority, and while still living abroad, to adopt the citizenship of his birthplace? It seems not, and that he must change his allegiance by emigration and legal process of naturalization.” Sections 1992 and 1993 of the Revised Statutes clearly show the extent of existing legislation; that the fact of birth, under circumstances implying alien subjection, establishes, of itself, no right of citizenship, and that the citizenship of a person so born is to be acquired in some legitimate manner through the operation of statute. No statute contemplates the acquisition of the declared character of an American citizen by a person not at the time within the jurisdiction of the tribunal of record which confers that character.
Greisser was born in the State of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said:

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “subject to a foreign power,” and “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth, and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.

2 Whart.Int.Dig. 399.

The Civil Rights Act became a law April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27, c. 31), and provided:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

And this was reenacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes, section 1992. .
The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents’ merely being domiciled in the country, and it is single and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.
But it is argued that the words “and not subject to any foreign power” should be construed as excepting from the operation of the statute only the children of public ministers and of aliens born during hostile occupation.

Was there any necessity of excepting them? And if there were others described by the words, why should the language be construed to exclude them?
Whether the immunity of foreign ministers from local allegiance rests on the fiction of extraterritoriality or on the waiver of territorial jurisdiction by receiving them as representatives of other sovereignties, the result is the same.

They do not owe allegiance otherwise than to their own governments, and their children cannot be regarded as born within any other.

And this is true as to the children of aliens within territory in hostile occupation, who necessarily are not under the protection of, nor bound to render obedience to, the sovereign whose domains are invaded; but it is not pretended that the children of citizens of a government so situated would not become its citizens a their birth, as the permanent allegiance of their parents would not be severed by the mere fact of the enemy’s possession.

If the act of 1866 had not contained the words, “and not subject to any foreign power,” the children neither of public ministers nor of aliens in territory in hostile occupation would have been included within its terms on any proper construction, for their birth would not have subjected them to ties of allegiance, whether local and temporary or general and permanent.

There was no necessity as to them for the insertion of the words, although they were embraced by them.

But there were others in respect of whom the exception was needed, namely, the children of aliens, whose parents owed local and temporary allegiance merely, remaining subject to a foreign power by virtue of the tie of permanent allegiance, which they had not severed by formal abjuration or equivalent conduct, and some of whom were not permitted to do so if they would.

And it was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United States that the words were inserted.

Two months after the statute was enacted, on June 16, 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed, and declared ratified July 28, 1868. The first clause of the first section reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Of course none of this provides a definitive view of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen”, however it does indicate that what ever the definition is – it is most certainly NOT dependent upon the English Common Law.

H. Brooke Paige: Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the Crown was thrown off and an independent government established, every rule of the common law and every statute of England obtaining in the Colonies in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded was abrogated

Do we choose citizens based on Jus Soli? Well, Title VIII, of U.S. Code, Section 1401 (a) says in fact we do. While I respect that the judge was trying to convey important information here, the fact is he was making a blanket statement that the United States rejected EVERYTHING that was previously English, but that is not altogether true, is it?

Does Title VIII U.S. Code, Section 1401 section (e) not state: “(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;” – ONE OF WHOM? Only ONE? Is this not a more proper indication of citizenry (and thus nativity which is Natural Born) than any ideal from a Swiss philosopher from over 200 years ago?

Yes, I realize you want to hanker about the terms citizen and natural born, but the fact is, your own case already did that. You will not get a SCOTUS hearing and what VT stated is in fact the case:

“While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”

Chief Justice Fuller wrote, in criticizing the result in Wong Kim Ark:

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

H. Brooke Paige: Of course none of this provides a definitive view of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen”, however it does indicate that what ever the definition is – it is most certainly NOT dependent upon the English Common Law.

I don’t know what Paige thinks copying a wall of text from Wong Kim Ark demonstrates (other than perhaps his mastery of the control key). It does, however, demonstrate that he’s never actually read the case.

Wong Kim Ark quoted Smith v. Alabama for this very simple statement: “There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

H. Brooke Paige: Is it mere chance that every President and Vice President (with the one deviation I have mentioned previously) has been a “natural born Citizen” in the classic Vattelian sense – that is “born in country to two citizen parents”?

I think not! I believe that most people understood that this definition was the applied standard and chose to look the other way to allow this charismatic young Chicago politician special dispensation in order to have our first minority
President. If the majority truly wished the pool of citizens eligible for the office to be expanded then an effort should have been made to amend the Constitution – not just ignore it and make excuses after the fact.

It frightens me that this fellow now acts with reckless disregard for the Constitution, but why not nobody seems to give a damn about following it anymore!

Brooke

And you ignored my question completely.

But Birthers always do.

Again:

It is well known that the commonly accepted definition of NBC is anyone born in the United States with the known exceptions.

Virtually everyone in the United States accepts this- and that is why there has never been any real challenge to Presidential eligibility.

So how did anyone know who was eligible the 43 times before Obama?

I was taught about Presidential eligibility in the late 60’s or early 70’s by my very conservative Civics teacher.

He taught me that anyone born in the U.S. can aspire to grow up and be elected President- and never mentioned Vattel once.

Before Obama was elected, you had never heard of Vattel. You had never heard of this revisionist theory. But after Obama was elected suddenly you decided this needed to be decided by the courts.

We Americans feel no such need. No one misunderstands the definition of NBC but Birthers.

Dr. Conspiracy: First, your count is off. The number is 2, not 1. And given that most people in the United States have citizen parents (especially the well-connected people that can run for president) I don’t find the number at all odd.

Has anyone ever cared what the citizenship of a President’s parents were?

I knew Bush2 because I knew who Bush 1 was.

Clinton? I knew he was raised in Arkansas, and abandoned by his father- but never knew- or cared what his fathers citizenship was when he was born.

Same for Bush 1
Same for Reagan

Shall I continue?

Nobody cared about whether a President’s parents were citizens when he was born.

H. Brooke Paige: There is a great deal of law and opinion relating to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,the case came to define who was a “citizen of the United States” it did not relate to or reach defining who was a “natural born Citizen” – it could not!. One interesting element is that it did result in a definitive understanding that the United States, as far as citizenship was concerned – cast off and abdicated the English Common Law.

You do know Fuller lost the argument and his dissenting opinion is therefor useless. The majority said we didn’t cast off or abrogate the English common law. Do you not know what a dissenting opinion is?

And you fail to cut and paste the opening of Fuller’s dissenting opinion which is his summary of Gray’s majority opinion, the opinion that won and is the current law:

“The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule “was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;” and “that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.” Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.

If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 8, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were, and are, aliens, unless they have, or shall on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States, and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect. And children who are aliens by descent, but born on our soil, are exempted from the exercise of the power to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, so often maintained by this court, an exemption apparently disregarded by the acts in respect of the exclusion of persons of Chinese descent.

The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence……And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained.”

Now go read Gray’s majority opinion and you will see such is exactly what Gray said. Indeed, much of Fuller summary is quoting Gray. You really don’t understand what he means when he says the English common law “governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted” or that the definition of natural born citizen “must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality.” Sure, Justice Fuller didn’t understand the majority opinion he argued about in chambers for months. LOL.

You are starting to look like another dishonest person who simply will not read the actual opinion as no honest person can deny it defined the term by the English common law, such is part of the holding of the case and hence precedent. Such is why modern court after modern court has looked to it as dispositive of the issue. I know, everyone is wrong but you.

REALLY ! -This is what you are hanging you hat on – it is no wonder I could not figure out where you were coming from:

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution,

I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances

and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency

while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

I would submit that: It was (is) unreasonable to conclude that all born here regardless of parental :citizenship are eligible to be qualified to serve as President, certainly those where were born here coincidentally because their non-citizen parents just happened to be here at the moment of the child’s birth … while the children of our citizens born abroad were not. I AGREE none should be considered eligible!

This was the understanding of most even in the later part of twentieth
century as the following Presidential prospects were deemed ineligible (or in the case of Goldwater – eligible).

Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy as to whether he was in fact a “natural born Citizen”, eligible to serve as President since Goldwater had been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state – it was quickly decided that he was in fact a “nbC” and eligible to serve.

George Romney (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party presidential nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents he was not considered a “natural born Citizen” . Romney’s grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 but retained his citizenship.. Romney’s parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912

Lowell Weicker (born 1931), the former Connecticut senator, representative, and governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began when it was discovered he was not a “natural born Citizen” . Weicker was born in Paris, France, to parents who were U.S. citizens. At the time of his birth the family was living in France while his father was President of European operations for Squibb Pharmaceuticals. .

Róger Calero (born 1969 in Nicaragua) was a Socialist Workers Party candidate in 2004 and 2008.[75] Because he was not a natural born citizen of the United States, Calero was ineligible to become president, so James Harris, the Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate from 2000, stood in on the ticket in nine states where Calero could not be listed. In 2004,Also ran in 2004 and 2008 and was again excluded in the nine states that consider the qualification of candidates being placed on the ballot.

As you can see, it is not that rare for Presidential Candidates to be excluded from the process because of ineligibility – what is unusual is of a ineligible Candidate to disregard his (or her) ineligibility and run anyway, even worse is for an uninformed or ill-informed electorate to elect such a candidate.

According to this article, Chester Arthur’s father’s Irish nationality (at the time of Arthur’s birth) was known by at least 1880 — when Arthur was campaigning. Hinman’s book came out in 1884 — while Arthur was still president.

The birthers of Arthur’s day believed he was born in Canada. No one but no one, however, argued he was ineligible due to his father’s citizenship.

H. Brooke Paige:This was the understanding of most even in the latter part of twentieth
century as the following Presidential prospects were deemed ineligible

1. Cribbingfrom wikipedia does not improve your credibility. Especially when that article blows your “beliefs” out of the water.

2. If you bothered to read the wikipedia article, you would know that of the candidates you listed, only Calero was actually deemed ineligible. Calero, of course, was born in another country (and did not have even one U.S.-citizen parent). In other words, he was a foreigner, and no one disputes he (or other foreigners) are ineligible.

I would submit that: It was (is) unreasonable to conclude that all born here regardless of parental :citizenship are eligible to be qualified to serve as President, certainly those where were born here coincidentally because their non-citizen parents just happened to be here at the moment of the child’s birth … while the children of our citizens born abroad were not.I AGREE none should be considered eligible!

Yes, the persons who LOST the case said it was unreasonable. He was saying the majortiy opinion (the opinion that WON) was unreasonable for, as I pointed out above, he began his opinion stating he disagreed with the majority opinion that natural born was defined by the English common law rule based upon place of birth. Seriously, you seem quite dense.

This was the understanding of most even in the later part of twentieth
century as the following Presidential prospects were deemed ineligible

Nonsense. No court or mainstream legal authority question jus soli. The issue that was debated was whether a foreign born person could be a natural born citizen. It is settled law for more than a century that a person born outside the United States is an alien unless made a citizen by Congressional statute. When such person can be natural born is still debated.

How many sources can you find saying one needs citizen parents in history? Seriously. Here take a look at this. Are all these people and courts wrong?

Before Obama was elected, you had never heard of Vattel. You had never heard of this revisionist theory. But after Obama was elected suddenly you decided this needed to be decided by the courts.

Actually, Dr. Herman Michl, the renown conservative introduced me to Vattel in the 1975 – in relation to his course on International Economics at the University of Delaware. Dr. “Mike” considered himself a “classic liberal” and railed at being frequently referred to as the “last of the root-in, toot-in conservatives” Most of my small government / expansive individual rights beliefs are a result of his spirited, informative lectures and personal discussions.

Brooke

Yes, I am the product of a modest “land grant” college – no fancy Princeton or Harvard piety here – like your heroes G.W. Bush and B.H. Obama !

bgansel9: Do we choose citizens based on Jus Soli? Well, Title VIII, of U.S. Code, Section 1401 (a) says in fact we do. While I respect that the judge was trying to convey important information here, the fact is he was making a blanket statement that the United States rejected EVERYTHING that was previously English, but that is not altogether true, is it?

H. Brooke Paige: Actually, Dr. Herman Michl, the renown conservative introduced me to Vattel in the 1975 – in relation to his course on International Economics at the University of Delaware.

So you spent some time in Newark? I was born and raised in Newark (technically the hospital was in Wilmington, but my parents lived off Kirkwood Highway in Windy Hills). Newark is in New Castle County, both named after ENGLISH lands. We didn’t ABROGATE all things English, did we?

bob: 1. Cribbingfrom wikipedia does not improve your credibility.Especially when that article blows your “beliefs” out of the water.

“This does not necessarily mean that these officeholders or candidates were ineligible, only that there was some controversy about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility.”

bgansel9: So you spent some time in Newark? I was born and raised in Newark (technically the hospital was in Wilmington, but my parents lived off Kirkwood Highway in Windy Hills). Newark is in New Castle County, both named after ENGLISH lands. We didn’t ABROGATE all things English, did we?

I’m coming to the conclusion you spent too much time at the bar, Mr. Paige. Which did you prefer, The Deer Park Tavern, The Stone Balloon or the Down Under? (I’m afraid you’re going to say the Down Under LOL).

bgansel9: So you spent some time in Newark? I was born and raised in Newark (technically the hospital was in Wilmington, but my parents lived off Kirkwood Highway in Windy Hills). Newark is in New Castle County, both named after ENGLISH lands. We didn’t ABROGATE all things English, did we?

YES I spent 5 years getting my B.S. degree in Marketing and Finance while working full time to pay for my education. Saturday nights at Stevenson’s “Stone Balloon” busting tail every other night working and studying! Fond memories of good times almost 40 years ago !

The problem with that is immediately after independence, all 13 former colonies re-established the English Common Law either by constitution, statute or judicial fiat.

Certainly there were English principles that the Americans rejected, but they considered the common law their birthright.

H. Brooke Paige: Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the Crown was thrown off and an independent government established, every rule of the common law and every statute of England obtaining in the Colonies in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded was abrogated

bob: The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

—-
And this applies to a lot more than just the Constitution. In modern times, much of our statutes (civil and criminal) are really just the codification of the old common law as it existed at the time the statute was enacted (and then amended per legislative act thereafter).

I guess that’s why much of the first year of law school requires learning the common law of England and its evolution in the states of the U.S. as new cases and controversies were brought to the state courts. I often joke that I leaned to read and speak the King’s English in law school; it was–and still is–the language of the courts in the U.S. If I recall correctly, the English common law was the starting place of all the law for all of our state courts, except Louisiana–which was based on the French system.

Why would you make such an assumption, Mr. Paige? The residency qualification is not irrelevant. You assert that “the nation had no “natural born citizens” at the time the Constitution was adopted– at that time, and more pointedly, on March 4, 1789, were there any persons who had “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”?
What do you make of what Justice Story said in Shanks v. Dupont, speaking for a court including two veterans of the Revolution (including Washington’s friend, Chief Justice John Marshall):
“It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.”

H. Brooke Paige: First when the Constitution was enacted the nation had no “natural born Citizens”, it could not – it had to wait until its citizens made them – this is why the “or” citizens at the time of the Adoption…” phrase had to be included so the nation could have citizens eligible to serve as President until such time as individuals could be born in the country to its citizens and reach the required age to serve. The first Presidents were viewed as acceptable to serve as they had renounced their British Subjecthood and had embraced and championed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the republic created by it. (I will assume the age and residency qualifications need not be discussed.)

J.D. Sue: I guess that’s why much of the first year of law school requires learning the common law of England and its evolution in the states of the U.S. as new cases and controversies were brought to the state courts.

Which should make one question if Apuzzo knows what he’s doing… unless he went to the unaccredited online Taft Law School where they probably skipped such things.

Mr. Paige: The closest we will ever get to a Supreme Court holding on the meaning of the natural born Citizen clause is Wong Kim Ark. I’m satisfied (as are the courts that have considered the issue on the merits, and there have been a few) that Wong Kim Ark compels the result in Ankeny.

So, while I’m not relying on the dissent in Wong, it’s instructive and demonstrates that the Chief Justice was interpreting what Wong meant somewhat differently from your lawyer. Between the two of them I’ll go with Chief Justice Fuller.

As for Vattel, section 214, well I think all of Vattel is irrelevant to the discussion, but if you are going to quote Vattel you should quote the right section. Only problem is, it eviscerates your argument.

As for the understanding of the phrase “natural born” in the 1790s, the method of statutory and constitutional interpretation sometimes used by “originalists” like Antonin Scalia is to look solely to the words and their meaning at the time of the adoption or enactment. Since “natural born” meant “native born” in the 1790s, it’s really no big secret what the phrase meant or means today.

Your approach, which was perfected by Apuzzo, is to ignore all of the troublesome details and pick and chose what you like from irrelevant sources, avoiding the canons of interpretation and precedents.

On the issue of whether we had natural born citizens in 1787, all early authority says that we did. The debates in the convention made clear that the grandfather clause was for foreign born persons as James Wilson was complaining the foreign born would be left out of government if there was restrictions on the foreign born. No one in the early republic said such provision applied to persons born in the colonies and no one suggested any restriction on such persons. For example:

“It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73 (1833)

bgansel9: Which should make one question if Apuzzo knows what he’s doing… unless he went to the unaccredited online Taft Law School where they probably skipped such things.

—
I don’t know anything about Mr. Apuzzo’s other work or skills. I just read the brief to the U.S. Supreme Ct. that bears his name. As a professional courtesy, I assume he is just doing the best he can to help his client do what his client is trying to do.

Unfortunately, his client’s theories have no basis in the law. No doubt, that is why other lawyers won’t touch the case. Mr. Paige’s comments suggest that all other lawyers were too cheap to take his case pro bono, but I don’t believe it. Lots of lawyers take pro bono cases every year, and will jump on the chance to do so for an interesting case–especially if it has nationwide implications. But few good lawyers want to work on a meritless case, and even fewer want to work on a meritless case pro bono. Why Mr. Apuzzo has done so only Mr. Apuzzo knows for sure. But I submit that most lawyers would not put their name on a petition to the Supreme Court that is so legally meritless, As I said earilier, Apuzzo’s brief is silent on glaring issues, and I can only wonder if he thinks the Justices and their clerks can be fooled so easily. Even casual readers on the blogs are deafened by the silence.

J.D. Sue: But few good lawyers want to work on a meritless case, and even fewer want to work on a meritless case pro bono

I question if it’s some kind of dream that he’ll get famous but he doesn’t realize how meritless it is? I have highly admired your work here and IANAL but judging by your opinion of this case, it sounds as if Apuzzo should be embarrassed, and yet he isn’t.

J.D. Sue: —
I don’t know anything about Mr. Apuzzo’s other work or skills…..

The Vermont lawyers stated that they believed that my issues were meritorious, however they believed they “had neither the resources nor the expertise” to accept my engagement.”

There was no mention of fees – when I began the odyssey, I thought this was a modest action before the Washington County Supreme Court, as proscribed in Title 17 – Vermont’s Election Code.

If you want to talk about naïve – two years ago I certainly was as to where this puppy would take me.

Mr. Apuzzo is a general practice attorney, however has studied constitutional law and international law (in France and Italy). He is pleasant, knowledgeable and dedicated – we have become fast friends during all of this.

Appreciate Your Insight – However I have heard the other side of every argument made here and I am convinced in the virtue of our effort. The one thing I hope is for a clear precise statement from SCOTUS on their definition of a “natural born Citizen” to end all of this – once and for all. No matter which “flavor” they choose (in country, one parent, two parents, father’s citizenship only Or whatever combination of these and/or other elements)

My best memories of the “Balloon” are of Chubby Checker (well past his prime and very chubby) and Bruce Springsteen who lived in South Jersey(before the was the “Boss”).

Bruce Willis, who lived across the river in Penns Grove (I think) would show up at the “Balloon” fairly regularly, long before he began acting, however was such a character that he stood out in the crowd!

However I have heard the other side of every argument made here and I am convinced in the virtue of our effort.

Why? You have repeatedly been corrected about your incorrect beliefs about the factual and legal issues. There is no virtue in repeating lies.

The one thing I hope is for a clear precise statement from SCOTUS on their definition of a “natural born Citizen” to end all of this – once and for all. No matter which “flavor” they choose (in country, one parent, two parents, father’s citizenship only Or whatever combination of these and/or other elements)

I guarantee the U.S. Supreme Court will deny your petition, without comment. Because there is no serious disagreement concerning the definition of natural-born citizenship.

And like all the other birthers before you, you’ll say, “Gee, we’ll never know,” rather than concede that you were wrong.

bgansel9: I question if it’s some kind of dream that he’ll get famous but he doesn’t realize how meritless it is? I have highly admired your work here and IANAL but judging by your opinion of this case, it sounds as if Apuzzo should be embarrassed, and yet he isn’t.

—
Who knows. In some ways, he is getting famous, right? At least the birther/obot world is talking about him and the birthers seem to be impressed. That seems to count for a lot in the birthersphere (Just look at Orly).

Maybe Apuzzo originally had a an interesting legal strategy. He wanted to create a split among the jurisdictions, and figured the best way to do it was through a state court in Vermont. That was an interesting approach, IMO, because the U.S. Supreme Court may be very interested in an issue when the courts who have considered it are split, i.e., the courts are in disagreement with each other, so no one is sure what the law really is, and the Supreme Court steps in to clarify the law for everyone.

Unfortunately for Apuzzo, however, the Vermont courts did not disagree with the other courts, so there was no split. That is, his somewhat clever strategy failed. Oh well, good try, but no dice. He was left with no legitimate basis for approaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, now he is pressing ahead to the Supreme Court anyhow, and doing it with nothing.

H. Brooke Paige: Appreciate Your Insight – However I have heard the other side of every argument made here and I am convinced in the virtue of our effort.

You have been here at least twice (that I am aware of) now to discuss your case and the last time it went exactly as you were told it would go. You stated then that if it didn’t go your way, you would be back for your chastisement. Will you again be back for your chastisement? We really don’t want to chastise you, we want you to finally admit that the law is settled and it’s only the Birthers who are questioning it. You stated that you were going to “save us all” I don’t need saving. My president is eligible. Your state Supreme Court said my president is eligible. If SCOTUS denies cert, will you finally admit that?

H. Brooke Paige: Appreciate Your Insight – However I have heard the other side of every argument made here

—-

Odd that you would say that to me, since you still remain silent on the state/federal mootness issue that I’ve repeatedly asked you to consider. Oh well, maybe your lawyer can explain it to you. He certainly tried to snow the Court and dodge the real issue in the brief; the clerks and Justices will not fall for it.

Mr. Paige, your attorney cited the Ankeny decision in Indiana as if it somehow was supportive of his argument on the definition of natural born citizen when in fact it was diametrically opposed to his argument. Do you support and sign off on this childish deception? Do you realize that a rookie clerk at the Supreme Court will figure this out in five minutes and chuck this amateurish tripe where it belongs?

H. Brooke Paige: Mr. Apuzzo is a general practice attorney, however has studied constitutional law and international law (in France and Italy). He is pleasant, knowledgeable and dedicated – we have become fast friends during all of this.

Yes every one is aware of Mr. Apuzzo who is a DUI attorney and to say he studied constitutional law is laughable. Apuzzo has been here and gotten his ass handed to him multiple times. You sir are gullible.

So much of the common law of England as is applicable to the local situation and circumstances and is not repugnant to the constitution or laws shall be laws in this state and courts shall take notice thereof and govern themselves accordingly.

Mr. Paige, your case has been docketed by the SCOTUS. You should have an answer in early April. If the appellee doesn’t file a response by April 9th and the Court doesn’t request one, your petition is over.

H. Brooke Paige: The one thing I hope is for a clear precise statement from SCOTUS on their definition of a “natural born Citizen” to end all of this

As I understand it, the present case is about the mootness of the issue. It has nothing to do with the definition of “natural born Citizen”. So your ‘one thing you hope for’ is clearly and precisely out of reach.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out to you a bazillions times, over and over and over, SCOTUS made a clear and precise statement about the definition of “natural born Citizen” (as least as it applies to people born in the USA) in 1898.

That 1898 definition makes it abundantly clear that precisely ZERO citizen parents are required to make the child a natural born citizen.

As I said at the top however, even if lightening strikes, and your SCOTUS case is accepted for a hearing (I suppose even Supreme Court Justices need a bit of light relief occaisionally) it will not go anywhere near revisiting the 1898 decision, because your SCOTUS case simply has NOTHING to do with NBC in any way.

Sterngard Friegen: As for Vattel, section 214, well I think all of Vattel is irrelevant to the discussion, but if you are going to quote Vattel you should quote the right section. Only problem is, it eviscerates your argument.

Indeed!

I note that the Paige steadfastly refuses to respond to those (including but not limited to myself) who have pointed out that Vattel simply does not say what Paige (or Apuzzo) claims he did.

Note the total absence of quotes supporting their bizarre interpretation of Vattel re the two parents issue.

Their entire argument is like a monstrous inverted pyramid whose sole keystone at the bottom is Vattel.

H. Brooke Paige: Mr. Apuzzo is a general practice attorney, however has studied constitutional law and international law (in France and Italy).

If this is not a bold lie, please provide details — and supporting evidence.

I myself am a graduate from the Sorbonne University (aka Paris-1). I’d be happy to scan and post my diploma if asked. French Universities are obligated to issue a Certificate of Completion even to a Foreign Student that has completed only an exchange course. If Apuzzo has such certificate, ask him to post it.

Otherwise claiming what you claim is like saying I’ve studied physics at MIT because I once stepped foot in their library.

Let me say for the nth time: there is 200+ year of scholarship on Vattel; there is not a single source that claims that the plural of parens means two citizens; not a spectacular assumption since the very next sentence goes on to say only parent is needed.

bgansel9: I have highly admired your work here and IANAL but judging by your opinion of this case, it sounds as if Apuzzo should be embarrassed, and yet he isn’t.

Apuzzo is being paid by undisclosed parties to propagandize & spread the notion amongst predisposed gullible bigots that children born on US soil from parents who are not citizens (ie anchor babies) are not full-blown US citizens.

This was a notion already put forth in the founding documents of the KKK.

Once you look at the big picture, you realize how much of a dupe and a tool Paige is.

If a bigoted French attorney (let’s call him Marie Le Apuzzeau) twisted and distorted the writings of, say, Thomas Jefferson, to bolster some bizarre xenophobic / racist theory of his, I would hope that American lawyers would come here & help set the record straight.

Of course the very notion of a French Marie Le Apuzzeau doing this is absurd and I dare say I don’t think he’d get many followers, if any.

Lupin: Otherwise claiming what you claim is like saying I’ve studied physics at MIT because I once stepped foot in their library.

It’s a common trick to claim to have “studied” something somewhere simply because it doesn’t mean you ever achieved anything (like a diploma or other degree), you just tried to. 😉

I vividly remember a friend of mine who printed “Dipl. Math.” (Master’s Degree in Mathematics) in bold on his business card, followed by “(cand.)” (candidate, i.e. “not a degree yet”) in tiniest letters. (In Germany, using “cand.” when you are in your final exams but haven’t passed yet is customary only for students of medicine.)

H. Brooke Paige: The one thing I hope is for a clear precise statement from SCOTUS on their definition of a “natural born Citizen” to end all of this – once and for all. No matter which “flavor” they choose (in country, one parent, two parents, father’s citizenship only Or whatever combination of these and/or other elements)

SCOTUS has denied cert in all birther cases challenging Obama on his “lack of two citizen parents”.

That means there are three mutually exclusive possibilities:

1) The definition “born in the country” is correct.

2) The definition “born in the country” is not correct but whatever the correct definition is, Obama is eligible according to it.

3) The definition “born in the country” is not correct but SCOTUS somehow does not care the President is not eligible.

The sane world adheres to (1).
Birthers adhere to (3).
You claim you adhere to (2), but do not really, because you still consider SCOTUS “might” say you need two citizen parents which would make you a follower of (3). Concern trolling, nothing more.

Lupin: Apuzzo is being paid by undisclosed parties to propagandize & spread the notion amongst predisposed gullible bigots that children born on US soil from parents who are not citizens (ie anchor babies) are not full-blown US citizens.are not citizens (ie anchor babies) are not full-blown US citizens.

This was a notion already put forth in the founding documents of the KKK.

Once you look at the big picture, you realize how much of a dupe and a tool Paige is.

Lupin: If this is not a bold lie, please provide details — and supporting evidence.

Mr. Apuzzo’s resume is part of the Superior Court record, submitted as I attempted to have the court grant permission to allow him to assist me with the action. A little looking around will easily resolve your question.

I will ask Mario If he will permit me to post his information here – however I suspect that he would prefer that I didn’t do so. He doesn’t have a very high opinion of the folks here (and I am being very kind) and could care less what you think.

Additionally, I do not take kindly to being called a liar!

Despite what I think of all that has been said here, especially the twisting and turning to attempt to get the camel to jump through the eye of the needle; I have not once insulted or offended any of you!

Lupin: Apuzzo is being paid by undisclosed parties to propagandize & spread the notion amongst predisposed gullible bigots that children born on US soil from parents who are not citizens (ie anchor babies) are not full-blown US citizens.

Of course Lupin will now present his irrefutable evidence proving his charges!

Obviously you have not read the Supreme Court’s ruling. they said “moot” because the Election, Electoral College and Inaguration have passed AND if we were to proceed to the merits (and overcome standing, jurisdiction and venue) we believe it is not our duty (responsibility) to resolve the question – the answer is to be found elswhere: Congress, the FEC, … (or SCOTUS?).

The Vermont Supreme Court DID NOT speak to the elegibility of any candidate or Officeholder.

Also, what is this “my President” stuff, he is the President for all of us, the only differance is you believe he is the de jure Officeholder and I believe he is a de facto Officeholder.

H. Brooke Paige: Mr. Apuzzo is a general practice attorney, however has studied constitutional law and international law (in France and Italy).

Mario has a summary of his education on his web page:

“Mario Apuzzo obtained his undergraduate degree in Political Science (sic) from Wilkes University, in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He then attended Temple University School of Law, in Philadelphia, where he graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree in 1982. He continued his post-graduate legal studies at the University of the Pacific, Sacramento, California, at its McGeorge School of Law, in Salzburg, Austria, which also included course work in Milan, Italy, receiving a Diploma in Advanced International Legal Studies in 1983. He has studied comparative international law at Temple University, in Rome, and has also pursued a second law degree in the European civil law system at the University of Naples.”

The program in Austria takes place in the summer and lasts three weeks.

I find in interesting that Mr. Paige states he has known of Vattel and his writings since (IIRC 1975) and yet in all that time, not once, not once has he put forth the notion that all candidates for president and vice president should “show their papers” and prove they have two citizen parents and are eligible for the office. Perhpas his renowned teacher didn’t teach what Mr. Paige believes re Vattel? OR…

realist:
I find in interesting that Mr. Paige states he has known of Vattel and his writings since (IIRC 1975) and yet in all that time, not once, not once has he put forth the notion that all candidates for president and vice president should “show their papers” and prove they have two citizen parents and are eligible for the office.

Before 2008, I was unaware of the inelegibility of any Candidate, in 2008 I was working like a dog trying to keep my businesses alive in the “eat s–t” economy and barely had time to eat and sleep. I also thought that someone far more important and resourseful than myself would tend to all of this – another Presidential Candidate (HRC), one of the 435 Congressmen, one of the 100 Senators, the Incumbant President (GWB) or someone else of importance. None came forward, in 2012 – I decided to enquire of the Vermont Secretary of State as to the credentials of all candidates for the Office of President – I have already told the rest of the story above!

It wasn’t my responsibility, but I believe it was my duty AND the duty of a whole lot of my fellow citizens! I have done all that I can – now all we can do is be patient and see what develops.

I saw both the question and the answer, and I didn’t understand that a point was made in either (I may have missed it). If I were posing the question:

§214 tells us that the nation has the power to grant the right to hold office to anyone it chooses, and that it is not bound by Vattel’s personal view of what is natural law (and it is important that Vattel does not literally say “natural born citizen” in the original French, nor in English translation as of 1789). Of course in England, and in America whose political understanding was rooted in English law, the bonds of mutual allegiance between a person and the nation (or sovereign) based on place of birth are what matters, as James Madison said.

If you could point to any of the 13 states and find that they had a parentage requirement for citizenship, then you might have a start for making an argument that the United States took this into consideration in framing its Constitution but that is not true. In every one of the 13 states, persons born in the state were citizens without regard for the status of their parents (putting the slaves aside for a moment). Clearly Vattel’s notion of what is “natural” was not American.

I think it important to note Vattel’s definition of naturalization differs from an American definition. Vattel said:

Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

Whereas, the Supreme Court said in Scott v Sandford that a person born in a county could not be naturalized, and the the naturalization powers of Congress did not grant it the power to make citizens of the former slaves.

H. Brooke Paige: It might be useful to actually read the comments before attacking me – on March 9 @ 3:00 am I quote the entirity of section 214 and commented on it.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I notice contrary to Mr. Paige’s claim Mario didn’t put that he studied in france in his bio.

Thinking that I may have mispoken, I just double checked his resume and found that Mario studied in: Milan, Naples, Rome and Salzburg – I stand corrected! Odd that you didn’t bother to mention that I was correct to the extent that he DID studied International Law in Europe.

Jesus Christ. You are one passive-aggressive fluck. YOU mis-stated his education, you are now trying to gild the lily of his education, and when I pointed out your mistake, you get all 4th-gradey. Go back to bed.

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya”…Barrister Michael Shrimpton

Most things are simple.

It is important to sometime step back and look at an otherwise complex situation and provide clarity.

We know much about the Obama presidential eligibility and records despite Obama employing private and numerous government attorneys at taxpayer expense.

The following is a summary. Supporting details can be found on this site and many others.

■Obama’s father, by all indications was a foreigner. By many definitions, going back to the founding of this country, 2 citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen. A current case, Paige V State of Vermont, makes this assertion and is currently presented to the US Supreme Court. The SCOTUS should clearly define what a natural born citizen is and put this issue to rest.

■Obama, starting in 2008 has used Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, other private attorneys and numerous government attorneys, at taxpayer expense to keep his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden.

■Most of the circumstantial evidence up to early 2008 indicates that Obama was born in Kenya.

■There is no evidence, that would hold up in a court of law, that Obama was born in the US.

■The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov in 2011 is obviously not a copy of a traditional birth certificate that you and I had to present to play Little League baseball. It has “or abstract” at the bottom. Since anyone born anywhere could register a birth in Hawaii, even if the document came from HI, it proves nothing.

■Obama was born somewhere. We still do not know where.

■We have no solid proof that Stanley Ann Dunham was Obama’s biological mother.

■We have compelling evidence that Obama was helped with his college expenses. We have seen no evidence of his college loans.

■If Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS, we have been provided no proof.

: The Vermont Supreme Court DID NOT speak to the elegibility of any candidate or Officeholder.

Also, what is this “my President” stuff, he is the President for all of us, the only differance is you believe he is the de jure Officeholder and I believe he is a de facto Officeholder.

Vermont stated: “While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”

Vermont DID in fact address the eligibility requirement. I’m so glad to hear you say that Obama is president. You stated once last year that you were going to “save us all” from an Obama presidency. I don’t need to be saved. My president is not ineligible, apparently in your own mind you believe yours is.

H. Brooke Paige: Before 2008, I was unaware of the inelegibility of any Candidate, in 2008 I was working like a dog trying to keep my businesses alive in the “eat s–t” economy and barely had time to eat and sleep.

So in essence like other birthers you only thought about it when a black guy was nominated. And you think it’s your duty to say “Show us your papers, boy” and then “Oh not those those aren’t acceptable by the way the papers never mattered because of some made up version of natural born citizenship”

H. Brooke Paige: Thinking that I may have mispoken, I just double checked his resume and found that Mario studied in: Milan, Naples, Rome and Salzburg – I stand corrected! Odd that you didn’t bother to mention that I was correct to the extent that he DID studied International Law in Europe.

Hmm if I was a birther I would claim that oh you couldn’t have mispoken but rather it’s an obvious lie. No you were correct in that he claimed he did not that he actually did. Do you have any coursework or people who knew him while he studied there who could vouch for him?

I also notice in his own bio he says nothing about studying “Constitutional Law” as you claimed he did with your resume padding.

Hard to take the site seriously when it claims Obama used taxpayer money to hide stuff that he actually showed the public. There’s also your problem that there is no proof to support your claim that he spent any money. There’s also the problem that private records like school, birth, medical etc are protected by several federal laws and state privacy laws from unlawful intrusion from those who have no right to access it.

So when you start out with such an obvious lie why should anything else you say be anything different?

There’s also your problem that you’re talking out both sides of your mouth. You claim you have to see his documents while at the same time essentially claiming the documents don’t actually matter because you believe in some made up two citizen parent claim.

bgansel9:H. Brooke PaigeVermont stated: “While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.” Vermont DID in fact address the eligibility requirement.

You are incorrect, the SUPREME Court said that one should look elsewhere to find the definitional answer; possibly to: Congress, the FEC (or possibly SCOTUS) – the quotation you provide came frome the lower (Superior) court – of course you knew that and just were attempting to “slide one by!” The Supreme Court of Vermont certainly did not say that they found Judge Brown in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana was authoritative or qualified to speak to issues relating to Constitutional interpretation.

H. Brooke Paige: Obama’s father, by all indications was a foreigner. By many definitions, going back to the founding of this country, 2 citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen.

Parental citizenship has never mattered. You wonder why you get called a liar. You believe things such as the above.

H. Brooke Paige: Obama, starting in 2008 has used Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, other private attorneys and numerous government attorneys, at taxpayer expense to keep his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden.

Interesting claim that he kept his birth certificate hidden by showing it publicly. College records are protected under Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. Why would one have to pay to “hide” a record protected under federal law from unlawful access? There is no proof he spent any money to hide any records.

H. Brooke Paige: Most of the circumstantial evidence up to early 2008 indicates that Obama was born in Kenya.

Another lie. Most of the evidence out there points to a Hawaii birth

H. Brooke Paige: There is no evidence, that would hold up in a court of law, that Obama was born in the US.

Except you know the birth certificate, the verifications from the department of health, the birth index data, the birth announcements, the 1961 INS Data for Barack Obama Sr and the 1967 State Department memo saying he was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961.

H. Brooke Paige: The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov in 2011 is obviously not a copy of a traditional birth certificate that you and I had to present to play Little League baseball. It has “or abstract” at the bottom. Since anyone born anywhere could register a birth in Hawaii, even if the document came from HI, it proves nothing.

I doubt you actually remember what your birth certificate looked like when you played little league. That’s if you actually played. Hawaiian Little League team won the series not too long ago. The short form is the official birth certificate format Hawaii uses so yeah you could play little league with it. The claim that anyone born anywhere could register a birth in Hawaii is also false. It wouldn’t say they were born in Hawaii on it.

So are you adopting all of Citizen WElls’ lies as your own by reference? You can start by explaining how Obama used taxpayer money to hide is birth certificate STARTING in 2008 before he was president, and on and on.

That’s a despicable smear piece, and you’ve just lowered what ever reputation you had here into the sewer by citing it.

Enjoy? Sorry, I have never enjoyed sewage.

H. Brooke Paige: Since you folks would never dare to go over to Mr. Well’s website “CITIZEN WELLS”, I thought it might me instructive to bring one of his recent postings over here – ENJOY!

Dr. Conspiracy:
So are you adopting all of Citizen WElls’ lies as your own by reference? You can start by explaining how Obama used taxpayer money to hide is birth certificate STARTING in 2008 before he was president, and on and on.

That’s a despicable smear piece, and you’ve just lowered what ever reputation you had here into the sewer by citing it.

Enjoy? Sorry, I have never enjoyed sewage.

I find all of this “of Interest”, obviously all or even most of this cannot be proven (especially with the fox guarding the henhouse) however isn’t it interesting with all the vile attacks on GWB that he never attempted to hide or offuscate his records – you would have to journey back to the Clinton era to find this level of concealment (of course not relating to birth records).

And as to “sewage”, it seems that the pipes get backed up around here pretty often!

H. Brooke Paige: You are incorrect, the SUPREME Court said that one should look elsewhere to find the definitional answer; possibly to: Congress, the FEC (or possibly SCOTUS) – the quotation you provide came frome the lower (Superior) court – of course you knew that and just were attempting to “slide one by!”

I don’t “slide one by”. I am not a legal expert. I read it and thought that was the Supreme Court’s conclusion. I obviously made a mistake. I offer an apology. At the same time, if the Supreme Court did not uphold your claim, does not the Superior court ruling currently stand?

Dr. Conspiracy:
So are you adopting all of Citizen WElls’ lies as your own by reference? You can start by explaining how Obama used taxpayer money to hide is birth certificate STARTING in 2008 before he was president, and on and on.

That’s a despicable smear piece, and you’ve just lowered what ever reputation you had here into the sewer by citing it.

Enjoy? Sorry, I have never enjoyed sewage.

WOW , you stated (just four minutes earlier) that YOU had cited Citizen Wells “a couple of weeks ago” and then offered a link. Short attention span or what?

Mr. Paige finds all of Citizen Wells’ lies “of interest” even though they cannot be proven. That’s certainly a responsible point of view. Just believe some wild statements, and say they can’t be proven because Pres. Obama is so all powerful he can hide them.

H. Brooke Paige: find all of the “of Interest” obviously all or even most of this sannnot be proven (especially with the fox guarding the henhouse) however isn’t it interesting with all the vile attacks on GWB that he never attempted to hide or offuscate his records

—-
Attempting to slide one by — that is a good description of your brief’s section on mootness. You still haven’t answered why the U.S. Supreme Court’s reading of Art. III for its mootness doctrine has anything to do with the Vermont Supreme Court’s reading of Vermont’s Constitution for its mootness doctrine.

Since you won’t answer key questions posted here, you resort to claiming that Obama was born overseas to another woman, and spent a lot of money to hide records that are already protected by statute for free. Just wow.

Not really. As has been stated, your appeal on the mootness question is frivolous as you present no federal question for the court to review. Sorry, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have no jurisidiction to address state law claims that don’t violate federal law. Since the court will not address your mootness claim, there is no case or controversy and no jurisdiction to address your NBC claim. While the court can address legal questions not addressed below, it almost never does. However, when there is no case or controversy, it cannot address the NBC claim. You are essentially asking for an advisory opinion which is not permitted in the supreme court. Sorry, that is reality.

H. Brooke Paige: “Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

Blame the birthers that sue the president in his official capacity or other parts of the Federal Government. When you sue the President as president, or any other official office of the government, and serve DC AG, DOJ is the party representing the Government. Maybe if birthers stopped suing the Government, DOJ would stop defending these cases.

H. Brooke Paige: “Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

Moore has yet to actually have a case before him that involved evidence of eligibility. The question before the Alabama Supreme Court is whether the Secretary of State has the power or obligation to determine a candidate’s eligibility. There actually has been no evidence presented in the case, nor will there be before the Supreme Court (you don’t present evidence to a Supreme Court, it just reviews the legal conclusions of the lower court), so it’s not supriring what Judge Moore has seen has been limited.

Unless he claims to have been there when it happened, why should I care what Barrister Michael Shripmton has to say? He’s just another person making statements without any factual basis for them.

H. Brooke Paige: Obama’s father, by all indications was a foreigner. By many definitions, going back to the founding of this country, 2 citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen. A current case, Paige V State of Vermont, makes this assertion and is currently presented to the US Supreme Court. The SCOTUS should clearly define what a natural born citizen is and put this issue to rest.

Pure poppycock. It has never been accepted by the legal community that define natural born citizenship as requiring two citizen parents. This is just birther wet dreams. The Supreme Court did clearly define NBC as jus soli over 100 years ago in WKA. Everytime the issue has been raised by birthers, it has been slappped down by citing to WKA. Just because you want SCOTUS to re-address an uncontroversial legal issue doesn’t mean it will happen. Paige v. Vermont will most probably have cert denied with no further comment.

H. Brooke Paige: Obama, starting in 2008 has used Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, other private attorneys and numerous government attorneys, at taxpayer expense to keep his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden.

There is no evidence that a single penny of taxpayer money went to Perkins Coie. This is pure birther fantasy made up from whole cloth.

H. Brooke Paige: Most of the circumstantial evidence up to early 2008 indicates that Obama was born in Kenya.

Besides being totally false, (there is no evidence, circumstantial or other to indicate President Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. Circumstantial evidence isn’t unsubstantiaed rumour, innuendo and lies. Circumstanial evidece is admissable evidence that one can infer facts from. Birther have nothing), there is a mountain of admissable evidence (you know, the certified birth certificates from the State of Hawaii, that are prima facie evidence) to support the president was born in Hawaii.

H. Brooke Paige: There is no evidence, that would hold up in a court of law, that Obama was born in the US.

Besides the two certified birth certificates, the statements of Hawaiian government officials as official custodians of the records, the certifications from Hawaii’s DOH to the Arizon SoS, and some other crazy state, the extracts of the Hawaiian state records, the birth announcements…not that you need more than the birth certificates of course, since those are prima facie evidence.

H. Brooke Paige: The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov in 2011 is obviously not a copy of a traditional birth certificate that you and I had to present to play Little League baseball. It has “or abstract” at the bottom. Since anyone born anywhere could register a birth in Hawaii, even if the document came from HI, it proves nothing.

Pure poppycock. It says “or abstract” because the usual form of Hawaii birth certificates is the short form, which is an abstract, and is still prima facie evidence of the fact stated on it, and is still legally suffient to prove birth in Hawaii. Sorry they didn’t have a new rubber stamp made up to placate you, but you’re just not that special. Additionally, contrary to birther claims, no, anyone cannot get a Hawaii birth certificate stating they were born in Hawaii. Yes, since the 1980s a person can get a Hawaii birth certificate if they were born elsewhere, but it would state the person’s actual place of birth. Birther have never shown a single birth certificate of someone born elsewhere in the world with a Hawaii birth certificate stating a Hawaiin birth. Additinally, President Obama’s long form clearly states he was born in a hospital, in Hawaii, and signed by the attending physician. You have to ignore a giant mountian of evidence to make such bogus statements as you do.

H. Brooke Paige: We have no solid proof that Stanley Ann Dunham was Obama’s biological mother.

We have no solid proof of any president’s biological parents. We also have no justifiable reason to doubt Stanley Ann Dunham was President Obama’s biologicial mother. It’s just an unsubstantiated birther smear,

H. Brooke Paige: We have compelling evidence that Obama was helped with his college expenses. We have seen no evidence of his college loans.

If by “compelling evidence” you mean rumour, lies, and innuendo, then yes. Otherwise the only evidence we have of how the president paid for his education is the fact that his student loan records were hacked, and it was in the news. So it seems you are wrong on two fronts. We have no evidence that the President financed his education any differently than millions of other college students, and we can infer that he did take college loans out, but virtue of the fact that he had student loan records to be hacked. The fact that these records aren’t public isn’t shocking either, as these records are not public records for anyone. The reason you can’t see the President’s financial aid records is the same reason you can’t see mine.

H. Brooke Paige: If Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS, we have been provided no proof.

We have been provided more proof that President Obama is a NBC than any of the Presidents prior to him.

Mr. Paige: Related to your remarks about GWB’s records, could you please enlighten us with proof (or even evidence) of GWB (or any other presidential candidate for that matter) releasing records voluntarily… such as college transcripts, kindergarten records, parents’ citizenship, birth certificates, etc.

H. Brooke Paige: Are you talking about the ones Dan Rather “faked up” in order to prove his point? Maybe AP should invetigate Obama’s military records – I am sure they will release the records right away (an empty file)!Brooke

If President Bush has simply released his military records, there woudn’t have been a need for anyone to “fake up” anything, now would there.

H. Brooke Paige: Thinking that I may have mispoken, I just double checked his resume and found that Mario studied in: Milan, Naples, Rome and Salzburg – I stand corrected! Odd that you didn’t bother to mention that I was correct to the extent that he DID studied International Law in Europe.

Now that you have admitted your mistake, we have formally established that Mr Apuzzo has zero training, education or experience in French law.

None whatsoever.

Let’s consider this: this is the man you’re relying on to come up with an entirely novel theory about a French legal text, that has not been put forth before in 200 years.

The mind truly boggles.

If either Mario or you can find a SINGLE QUOTE from a Swiss or French (or even German) legal scholar pointing out to the prior existence of the bizarre and obviously wrong interpretation of the plural in the “citizens parens” clause, I will welcome the information and unreservedly apologize to both of you.

Until then, you are both unarguably WRONG.

Find other sources for your unique theory, but stop relying on Vattel. As someone said here, he eviscerates your cause.

Blame the birthers that sue the president in his official capacity or other parts of the Federal Government.When you sue the President as president, or any other official office of the government, and serve DC AG, DOJ is the party representing the Government.Maybe if birthers stopped suing the Government, DOJ would stop defending these cases.

Moore has yet to actually have a case before him that involved evidence of eligibility.The question before the Alabama Supreme Court is whether the Secretary of State has the power or obligation to determine a candidate’s eligibility.There actually has been no evidence presented in the case, nor will there be before the Supreme Court (you don’t present evidence to a Supreme Court, it just reviews the legal conclusions of the lower court), so it’s not supriring what Judge Moore has seen has been limited.

Unless he claims to have been there when it happened, why should I care what Barrister Michael Shripmton has to say?He’s just another person making statements without any factual basis for them.

Pure poppycock.It has never been accepted by the legal community that define natural born citizenship as requiring two citizen parents.This is just birther wet dreams.The Supreme Court did clearly define NBC as jus soli over 100 years ago in WKA.Everytime the issue has been raised by birthers, it has been slappped down by citing to WKA.Just because you want SCOTUS to re-address an uncontroversial legal issue doesn’t mean it will happen.Paige v. Vermont will most probably have cert denied with no further comment.

There is no evidence that a single penny of taxpayer money went to Perkins Coie.This is pure birther fantasy made up from whole cloth.

Besides being totally false, (there is no evidence, circumstantial or other to indicate President Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii.Circumstantial evidence isn’t unsubstantiaed rumour, innuendo and lies.Circumstanial evidece is admissable evidence that one can infer facts from.Birther have nothing), there is a mountain of admissable evidence (you know, the certified birth certificates from the State of Hawaii, that are prima facie evidence) to support the president was born in Hawaii.

Besides the two certified birth certificates, the statements of Hawaiian government officials as official custodians of the records, the certifications from Hawaii’s DOH to the Arizon SoS, and some other crazy state, the extracts of the Hawaiian state records, the birth announcements…not that you need more than the birth certificates of course, since those are prima facie evidence.

Pure poppycock.It says “or abstract” because the usual form of Hawaii birth certificates is the short form, which is an abstract, and is still prima facie evidence of the fact stated on it, and is still legally suffient to prove birth in Hawaii.Sorry they didn’t have a new rubber stamp made up to placate you, but you’re just not that special.Additionally, contrary to birther claims, no, anyone cannot get a Hawaii birth certificate stating they were born in Hawaii.Yes, since the 1980s a person can get a Hawaii birth certificate if they were born elsewhere, but it would state the person’s actual place of birth.Birther have never shown a single birth certificate of someone born elsewhere in the world with a Hawaii birth certificate stating a Hawaiin birth.Additinally, President Obama’s long form clearly states he was born in a hospital, in Hawaii, and signed by the attending physician.You have to ignore a giant mountian of evidence to make such bogus statements as you do.

We do know.It’s Hawaii.Get over it.

We have no solid proof of any president’s biological parents.We also have no justifiable reason to doubt Stanley Ann Dunham was President Obama’s biologicial mother.It’s just an unsubstantiated birther smear,

If by “compelling evidence” you mean rumour, lies, and innuendo, then yes.Otherwise the only evidence we have of how the president paid for his education is the fact that his student loan records were hacked, and it was in the news.So it seems you are wrong on two fronts. We have no evidence that the President financed his education any differently than millions of other college students, and we can infer that he did take college loans out, but virtue of the fact that he had student loan records to be hacked.The fact that these records aren’t public isn’t shocking either, as these records are not public records for anyone.The reason you can’t see the President’s financial aid records is the same reason you can’t see mine.

We have been provided more proof that President Obama is a NBC than any of the Presidents prior to him.

Considering there isn’t very much correct in the above statements, if this guy said the sky was blue, I’d probably look for myself to double check.

I have, which is just why I find most of this post completely laughable.

It was posted for your entertainment – Clearly none of it was my work product, however you expended a great deal of time and effort to create a fiction and reproduce it here.

Now here is a great example of the truthfulness around here! I said nothing of the sort – I believe that the President was born Hawaii to Stanley Ann and Barack (Sr.), it is the father’s citizenship that is MY only issue.

Nothing More, Nothing Less! (If any of MORE is true, God help us all!)

Brooke

You handywork here is well below what I world expect to find here – you are the flip side of what you seem to find offensive (and it is equally offensive)!

Some of have spent years researching all of this and contributing to the thousands of articles on Doc’s site and on TheFogbow.com. Here are some problems with Mr. Apuzzo’s assertions:

■Obama, starting in 2008 has used Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, other private attorneys and numerous government attorneys, at taxpayer expense to keep his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden.

False. Birth Certificates are property of the issuing state, and subject to extensive procedures to keep them safe and private. No money was spent to “seal” Obama’s BC or keep it hidden. College records are private under The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). No money spent to “seal” Obama’s records, although two law firms did quash attempts to illegally obtain such records.

■Most of the circumstantial evidence up to early 2008 indicates that Obama was born in Kenya.

Other than erroneous reporting in various publications, what circumstantial evidence? The vast majority of publications (going back to 1990) said he was born in Hawaii. His book said he was born in Hawaii. His Illinois Senate campaign said he was born in Hawaii. The birth certificate his presidential campaign released said he was born in Hawaii, and Hawaiian officials concurred. Where’s the list of your “circumstantial evidence”? Here’s 25 documents claiming Obama was born in Hawaii. Note numbers 3, 4, 14-24. All were available before 2008.

■There is no evidence, that would hold up in a court of law, that Obama was born in the US.

The certified paper birth certificate released in 2008 and photographed by FactCheck would certainly hold up in court. As would the certified paper birth certificate released in 2011 and examined by the White House Press Corps. Plus the certified paper verifications sent to the Secretaries of State for Kansas and Arizona, and the District Court in Mississippi. Also Obama’s passport.

■The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov in 2011 is obviously not a copy of a traditional birth certificate that you and I had to present to play Little League baseball. It has “or abstract” at the bottom.

Since Hawaii no longer uses that format for birth certificates and hasn’t since 2001, Obama had to make a special request to get a certified copy of his original birth record. However, the certified paper document that was released in 2008 is sufficient proof of birth data to play Little League, get a driver’s license, or get a passport.

Since anyone born anywhere could register a birth in Hawaii, even if the document came from HI, it proves nothing.

If someone registers an out-of-state or out-of-country birth in Hawaii, the document says the actual location of birth. It doesn’t say that the birth took place in Hawaii. Other states do the same thing — my home state of Pennsylvania certainly does.

■We have no solid proof that Stanley Ann Dunham was Obama’s biological mother.

We don’t have solid proof of any president’s biological parents. Nor is any needed.

■We have compelling evidence that Obama was helped with his college expenses.

Has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility for president. However, since you brought it up — “Compelling proof” is a single interview, I believe (please correct me with links, if possible, and I’ll update my files).

We have seen no evidence of his college loans.

We haven’t, but 8 people pled guilty and one was convicted of accessing Obama’s student loan records.

■If Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS, we have been provided no proof.

We have been provided with far more proof that Obama was born in the USA than we have of any other president or presidential candidate in the history of the US.

H. Brooke Paige: I find all of this “of Interest”, obviously all or even most of this cannot be proven (especially with the fox guarding the henhouse) however isn’t it interesting with all the vile attacks on GWB that he never attempted to hide or offuscate his records – you would have to journey back to the Clinton era to find this level of concealment (of course not relating to birth records).

Wow you’re not a serious person. Obama hasn’t attempted to “hide or obfuscate his records” either. This is why we can’t take you seriously in that you tell such obvious lies. Actually there was a lot of hub bub during GW Bush’s time period that a whole year out of his military service was missing from the records he released. It’s funny how you claim Obama is hiding records which he has shown and Bush who never showed his birth certificate was outright and honest. You’re a liar plain and simple

H. Brooke Paige: I believe that the President was born Hawaii to Stanley Ann and Barack (Sr.), it is the father’s citizenship that is MY only issue.

Do you believe the lies you write? Seriously if you had only a concern about the father’s citizenship you wouldn’t be lying about the President hiding records and talking about the birth certificate. The father’s citizenship is your fall back plan.

H. Brooke Paige: I had intended to leave you folks to your own distractions at 200 comments, I WILL leave at 300, I have a life and it is not being involved in this endless circular argument!Brooke

No surprise like last time you were here you got destroyed on your claims and run away. It is only circular because you keep presenting long debunked lies which when debunked you switch to the next one. You’re an intellectually dishonest fool and you once again proved it.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Wow you’re not a serious person.Obama hasn’t attempted to “hide or obfuscate his records” either.This is why we can’t take you seriously in that you tell such obvious lies.Actually there was a lot of hub bub during GW Bush’s time period that a whole year out of his military service was missing from the records he released.It’s funny how you claim Obama is hiding records which he has shown and Bush who never showed his birth certificate was outright and honest.You’re a liar plain and simple

Whatever4: False. Birth Certificates are property of the issuing state, and subject to extensive procedures to keep them safe and private. No money was spent to “seal” Obama’s BC or keep it hidden. College records are private under The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99). No money spent to “seal” Obama’s records, although two law firms did quash attempts to illegally obtain such records.

Other than erroneous reporting in various publications, what circumstantial evidence? The vast majority of publications (going back to 1990) said he was born in Hawaii. His book said he was born in Hawaii. His Illinois Senate campaign said he was born in Hawaii. The birth certificate his presidential campaign released said he was born in Hawaii, and Hawaiian officials concurred. Where’s the list of your “circumstantial evidence”? Here’s 25 documents claiming Obama was born in Hawaii. Note numbers 3, 4, 14-24. All were available before 2008.

The certified paper birth certificate released in 2008 and photographed by FactCheck would certainly hold up in court. As would the certified paper birth certificate released in 2011 and examined by the White House Press Corps. Plus the certified paper verifications sent to the Secretaries of State for Kansas and Arizona, and the District Court in Mississippi. Also Obama’s passport.

Since Hawaii no longer uses that format for birth certificates and hasn’t since 2001, Obama had to make a special request to get a certified copy of his original birth record. However, the certified paper document that was released in 2008 is sufficient proof of birth data to play Little League, get a driver’s license, or get a passport.

If someone registers an out-of-state or out-of-country birth in Hawaii, the document says the actual location of birth. It doesn’t say that the birth took place in Hawaii. Other states do the same thing — my home state of Pennsylvania certainly does.

We don’t have solid proof of any president’s biological parents. Nor is any needed.

Has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility for president. However, since you brought it up — “Compelling proof” is a single interview, I believe (please correct me with links, if possible, and I’ll update my files).

We haven’t, but 8 people pled guilty and one was convicted of accessing Obama’s student loan records.

We have been provided with far more proof that Obama was born in the USA than we have of any other president or presidential candidate in the history of the US.

I did.

I hope the birth certificate is “real” as it is the only piece of evidence that I submitted to the Court to prove that the de facto President’s father was a British Subject when his dual citizen son was born in Hawaii.

As to the rest of it, it has nothing to do with my action and in fact I truely hope none of it is true!

H. Brooke Paige: It was posted for your entertainment – Clearly none of it was my work product, however you expended a great deal of time and effort to create a fiction and reproduce it here.

You posted a long littany of long debunked birther b.s. Yes, it is clearly not your work product, but of Citizen Wells. Doesn’t make it any less B.S. that you reproduced. And junk law having been a hobby of mine long before birthers came on the scene (it was tax protesters, and patriots for profit/sovereign citizens before birthers), there really wasn’t that much effort. And by simply playing Big Brother and attempting to label fact fiction, and fiction fact doesn’t make it so. There is a reason why birthers have been laughed out of court over 200 times. It’s because your claims have no basis in reality.

H. Brooke Paige: Now here is a great example of the truthfulness around here! I said nothing of the sort – I believe that the President was born Hawaii to Stanley Ann and Barack (Sr.), it is the father’s citizenship that is MY only issue.

And your issue is pretty meaningless because no court in the United States have ever looked to a parent to determine if a person born on US soil is NBC (unless that parent is a diplomat). Sorry, that’s the law, and has been uncontroversially so long since either you or I were a twinkle in our respective fathers’ eyes. That quite simply is the state of the law. There is a reason why you couldn’t find any attorney in the State of Vermont to represent you, even if you paid them. It’s because your claims have no merit.

H. Brooke Paige: Nothing More, Nothing Less! (If any of MORE is true, God help us all!)

It still leaves you with a whole lot of nothing.

H. Brooke Paige: You handywork here is well below what I world expect to find here – you are the flip side of what you seem to find offensive (and it is equally offensive)!

Yes, it is what one would expect to find here. Statements rooted in fact and law. If by “flip side” you mean the opposite of what birther post, then you would be right. I’m sorry you find reality and facts offensive. Most of us have long since adjusted living in the reality based world.

H. Brooke Paige: I hope the birth certificate is “real” as it is the only piece of evidence that I submitted to the Court to prove that the de facto President’s father was a British Subject when his dual citizen son was born in Hawaii.

Dishonest to the end eh? You don’t hope it’s real, btw it is real. If you hoped it was real you wouldn’t spend so much time trying to disprove it. He’s not a “de facto President” he is the President legally and lawfully.

If you did not concede the point explicitly (and I missed it), I presume you tacitly concede that there were citizens of the United States defined before the sitting of the first Congress under the Constitution.

H. Brooke Paige: I had intended to leave you folks to your own distractions at 200 comments, I WILL leave at 300, I have a life and it is not being involved in this endless circular argument!

H. Brooke Paige:
I had intended to leave you folks to your own distractions at 200 comments, I WILL leave at 300, I have a life and it is not being involved in this endless circular argument!

Brooke

You did not answer my question above. Can we expect you to make an appearance for chastisement after cert is denied? I’m just curious. Will you at that point acknowledge that Barack Obama is factually eligible and legitimate?

Dr. Conspiracy:
If you did not concede the point explicitly (and I missed it), I presume you tacitly concede that there were citizens of the United States defined before the sitting of the first Congress under the Constitution.

Absolutely, I have only said that there were no “natural born Citizen”s of sufficient age (3% years) to be qualified. – I just found where stated earlier that:

H. Brooke Paige – March 9, 2014 at 9:54 am (Quote)#

“CITIZENSHIP,

You are correct (and I thought I said, at one point in all of this) that citizenship, in the Revolutionary era was acquired by the citizens themselves by rejecting their subjecthood, supporting the revolution, the “Declaration”, the first republic design of the “Articles”, you are certainly correct that for those who immediately embraced these elements (or claimed to have done so) of “citizenship” could trace their commitment back to July 4th, 1776 (and for some April 18, 1775.) and therefore it was not problematic for Senators and Members of the House to meet the citizenship requirements.”

H. Brooke Paige: For now, pending the appeal prosess! Of course the Supreme Court did not reach the merits – only finding the action was “moot”.

Brooke

I’m sure Orly can advise you on the addresses of all the international courts where your tome can be sent after SCOTUS round files it. And of course there’s always the Galactic Council. And there’s gotta be something in the Shadow Proclamation about citizen parents.

bgansel9: You did not answer my question above. Can we expect you to make an appearance for chastisement after cert is denied? I’m just curious. Will you at that point acknowledge that Barack Obama is factually eligible and legitimate?

Regardless of the outcome, I will visit with you folks again once SCOTUS has acted one way or the other, especially if I lose (if I win I probably won’t unless invited) as I am not one to gloat!

When the issue has reached a finality and IF the Court has defined a “nbC” as at least “born to one citizen parent or born in country to one citizen parent” I will embrace Mr. Obama as the ‘de jure” President of the United States and Commander in Chief. (please note there is a BIG if in there!)

Brooke

The webmaster has my e-mail address and I think I provided it in several of my posts.

No, it really doesn’t. The Vermont Supreme court declined to go into the merits of Paige’s case because it was moot. The only agreement that can be inferred from their decision was on mootness and as I read it, lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They wrote:

“7. The case is moot. … Accordingly the Court need not address plaintiff’s other arguments on standing or the merits.”

This is in contrast to Gibney’s decision in the Tisdale case where the Judge ruled that he lacked jurisdiction because the status of the children of alien parents born in the US was well established, and the relief requested would be impossible since it was contrary to law.

bgansel9: Which implies that they agree with the Superior Court ruling.

H. Brooke Paige: When the issue has reached a finality and IF the Court has defined a “nbC” as at least “born to one citizen parent or in country to one citizen parent” I will embrace Mr. Obama as the ‘de jure” President of the United States and Commander in Chief. (plese note there is a BIG if in there!)

Given that it is virtually certain that the Supreme Court will not rule in your case, I think the “if” is vanishingly small.

H. Brooke Paige: When the issue has reached a finality and IF the Court has defined a “nbC” as at least “born to one citizen parent or in country to one citizen parent” I will embrace Mr. Obama as the ‘de jure” President of the United States and Commander in Chief. (please note there is a BIG if in there!)

H. Brooke Paige: When the issue has reached a finality and IF the Court has defined a “nbC” as at least “born to one citizen parent or born in country to one citizen parent” I will embrace Mr. Obama as the ‘de jure” President of the United States and Commander in Chief. (please note there is a BIG if in there!)

So in other words you’re always going to find a caveat for not accepting reality that Barack Hussein Obama II is President of the United States.

H. Brooke Paige: When the issue has reached a finality and IF the Court has defined a “nbC” as at least “born to one citizen parent or born in country to one citizen parent” I will embrace Mr. Obama as the‘de jure” President of the United States and Commander in Chief. (please note there is a BIG if in there!)

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! NOBODY CARES IF YOU THINK OBAMA IS PRESIDENT OR NOT!!! He IS the President and nothing you say or do will change that. Enjoy pissing into the wind buddy.

H. Brooke Paige: ■Obama, starting in 2008 has used Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, other private attorneys and numerous government attorneys, at taxpayer expense to keep his birth certificate, college records and other records hidden.

■Most of the circumstantial evidence up to early 2008 indicates that Obama was born in Kenya.

■There is no evidence, that would hold up in a court of law, that Obama was born in the US.

■The image placed on WhiteHouse.gov in 2011 is obviously not a copy of a traditional birth certificate that you and I had to present to play Little League baseball. It has “or abstract” at the bottom. Since anyone born anywhere could register a birth in Hawaii, even if the document came from HI, it proves nothing.

■Obama was born somewhere. We still do not know where.

■We have no solid proof that Stanley Ann Dunham was Obama’s biological mother.

■We have compelling evidence that Obama was helped with his college expenses. We have seen no evidence of his college loans.

■If Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS, we have been provided no proof.

Dear Mr. Paige- do you believe any of this steaming pile of BS?

Because that is of course what it is- pure BS- out and out lies.

Posting BS like this just puts you in the company with the slimiest of the Birthers and puts into question any of your claims of just trying to settle the question of NBC.

Lupin: we have formally established that Mr Apuzzo has zero training, education or experience in French law.

None whatsoever.

Let’s consider this: this is the man you’re relying on to come up with an entirely novel theory about a French legal text, that has not been put forth before in 200 years

That’s the level of crankery that you see a lot in other scientific areas when uneducated laymen believe they have found what all the experts haven’t been able to in centuries:

– The people who think Relativity Theory is some Jewish conspiracy and that it must be wrong simply because it violates said cranks’ intuition.

– The people who flood publishers with “proofs” of “P =/!= NP” (or, in the past, Fermat’s Last Theorem) that are 200 pages long and fall apart on the second page.

– The people who still believe we’re living inside (!) a hollow Earth and some vast conspiracy covers it up, but their observations of whatever “prove” that they are correct.

The Internet has just allowed these people to elevate themselves to the status of “genuine controversy” by finding a couple dozen followers or sock puppets who then flood the web with copies of that nonsense.

Notably, many of these cranks aren’t really stupid (in the sense of “uneducated”, “low IQ”). Many are experts in other fields and somehow believe that since their field is superior to the one they’re trying to work in, they don’t need special training. I often see this when engineers or even physicists with a Ph.D. believe that they can easily understand the law since “it’s not real science anyway”.

(And not forgetting some of those cranks actually *are* trained in their respective fields, see Apuzzo or KKKlayman. Which makes them all the worse.)

Apart from more deplorable motives (racism, political demagoguery etc.), some are motivated simply by the irrational dream that they will become world-famous by finding something that has been overlooked or “covered up” for a long time.

Dr. Conspiracy:
No, it really doesn’t. The Vermont Supreme court declined to go into the merits of Paige’s case because it was moot. The only agreement that can be inferred from their decision was on mootness and as I read it, lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They wrote:

“7. The case is moot. … Accordingly the Court need not address plaintiff’s other arguments on standing or the merits.”

This is in contrast to Gibney’s decision in the Tisdale case where the Judge ruled that he lacked jurisdiction because the status of the children of alien parents born in the US was well established, and the relief requested would be impossible since it was contrary to law.

H. Brooke Paige: Regardless of the outcome, I will visit with you folks again once SCOTUS has acted one way or the other, especially if I lose (if I win I probably won’t unless invited) as I am not one to gloat!

When the issue has reached a finality and IF the Court has defined a “nbC” as at least “born to one citizen parent or born in country to one citizen parent” I will embrace Mr. Obama as the ‘de jure” President of the United States and Commander in Chief. (please note there is a BIG if in there!)

Unlike yourself (obviously!) I generally limit myself to postings on topics where I have credible experience, such as Vattel, French Law, etc.

It wouldn’t occur to me to pontificate about your Supreme Court or law history. (If only the reverse were true!)

You might note that your Congressional Research Service also reviewed your novel theories about Vattel and predictably (in light of 200+ years of reading this correctly) declared you wrong also.

Once one removes Vattel from your construction, do you have anything else supporting your case?

No,. I didn’t think so. You have nothing.

Even if your Supreme Court decided to hear your case (which lawyers here say it won’t) they would ineluctably come to the same conclusion as your Congressional Research person — and numerous French legal scholars over the centuries: you are wrong; you still have nothing.

Why you persist in your delusion is because you’ve been conned by Apuzzo, and dupes hate to admit having been conned. Some never do, despite overwhelming evidence.

Once you’ve lost (again), by all means come back here and, this time, try to open your eyes and your ears to the real world,

H. Brooke Paige: The SCOTUS should clearly define what a natural born citizen is and put this issue to rest.

In the “Real World” there is no issue, at least as far as for those born in country. The only issue which might possibly crop up is for someone born out of country who gains citizenship at birth, Their citizenship is obtained by statute, not common law or the Constitution. I don’t foresee this question being settled by SCOTUS in the near future, however,

So Mr. Paige– were there residents within the United States prior to July 4, 1776?

H. Brooke Paige: Dr. Conspiracy:
If you did not concede the point explicitly (and I missed it), I presume you tacitly concede that there were citizens of the United States defined before the sitting of the first Congress under the Constitution.

Absolutely, I have only said that there were no “natural born Citizen”s of sufficient age (3% years) to be qualified. – I just found where stated earlier that:

H. Brooke Paige – March 9, 2014 at 9:54 am (Quote)#

“CITIZENSHIP,

You are correct (and I thought I said, at one point in all of this) that citizenship, in the Revolutionary era was acquired by the citizens themselves by rejecting their subjecthood, supporting the revolution, the “Declaration”, the first republic design of the “Articles”, you are certainly correct that for those who immediately embraced these elements (or claimed to have done so) of “citizenship” could trace their commitment back to July 4th, 1776 (and for some April 18, 1775.) and therefore it was not problematic for Senators and Members of the House to meet the citizenship requirements.”

There is another genuine issue that ought to be dealt with– the status of persons who acquire US citizenship as infants or very young children under the Child Citizenship Act. This would include children born abroad, with one US citizen parent, who had not acquired US citizenship at birth because of that parent’s failure to satisfy the physical presence requirement. They are naturalized citizens, and there is no question of their ineligibility; but should they be excluded as naturalized foreigners?

Sef: In the “Real World” there is no issue, at least as far as for those born in country. The only issue which might possibly crop up is for someone born out of country who gains citizenship at birth, Their citizenship is obtained by statute, not common law or the Constitution. I don’t foresee this question being settled by SCOTUS in the near future, however,

Dave B.:
There is another genuine issue that ought to be dealt with– the status of persons who acquire US citizenship as infants or very young children under the Child Citizenship Act.This would include children born abroad, with one US citizen parent, who had not acquired US citizenship at birth because of that parent’s failure to satisfy the physical presence requirement.They are naturalized citizens, and there is no question of their ineligibility; but should they be excluded as naturalized foreigners?

I would think that SCOTUS would say that this is within Congress’ role to define rules for naturalization, whatever those might be.

Well yes, insofar as naturalizing them in the first place; but I think that taking persons who are beyond ANY current understanding of the term “natural born citizen,” however inclusive it may be, and making them eligible for the Presidency would take more than a bit of Congressional wand-waving. I should make it clear that the class of persons I referred to includes foreign children adopted by US citizens.
Having said that, I also think that public perception is a mighty powerful actor in settling the question. If John McCain, for example, had been a person born in the Canal Zone to two naturalized US citizen parents, who was raised in Panama and had not served the United States in any capacity, his US citizenship would spring from exactly the same source that it in fact did. Would that John McCain have been accepted and acknowledged as a natural born citizen of the United States as readily as the one we actually have?

Sef: I would think that SCOTUS would say that this is within Congress’ role to define rules for naturalization, whatever those might be.

H. Brooke Paige: Regardless of the outcome, I will visit with you folks again once SCOTUS has acted one way or the other, especially ifI lose (if I win I probably won’t unless invited) as I am not one to gloat!

I can guarantee you that you will not have anything to gloat about.

Incidentally, did you know that when Mario brought the Kerchner case before the Supreme Court, he didn’t even know how SCOTUS works?

At the time, Mario was posting at CAAFlog, a blog frequented by military attorneys. One of those attorneys, Dwight Sullivan, has had several cases
appealed to SCOTUS. Mario filed Kerchner’s petition for a writ of certiorari on 9/30/10. On 11/3/10 the respondents waived their right to file a response. The petition was then distributed for a conference without a single justice asking the respondents to file a response. Dwight Sullivan told Mario that this meant that his petition had been put on the “dead list” and effectively had already been denied. Mario took umbrage at this and refused to believe it, even though a lay person could do ten minutes of online research and see that this is precisely how SCOTUS works. We all know how that turned out.

Here is what will happen with your SCOTUS petition. Sometime between now and April 9 the State of Vermont will waive its right to respond. Not a single justice will be interested in your case, so the petition will be “dead listed” and scheduled for a conference. A few days after the conference (at which your petition will not even be mentioned) a formal denial of your petition will be issued.

Perhaps one day you will look back on your fool’s errand and ask yourself why not a single prominent Constitutional attorney in the Republican Party or Libertarian Party was willing to take up your “two citizen parents requirement” theory. Perhaps you will ask yourself why the McCain-Palin campaign in 2008 failed to inform voters that Barack Obama was not eligible to be President because his father was not a U.S. citizen, and why the Romney-Ryan campaign in 2012 likewise neglected to bring up your interpretation of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. And who knows, perhaps you will come to the realization that there is a good reason why there is not a single Constitution Law text, history text, or civics text which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. Perhaps, but probably not.

I am divorced from my wife, who lives across the country from me. She is a single mother, who I send child support from. We are legally divorced, so we are not considered part of the same family at all. We have one child. My wife belongs to the country club near her house.

Now, here comes the problem. The country club clearly says that “only children of members may use the pool.” I want my child to be able to use the pool. Now, it clearly says, “children” and it clearly says “members”. So, my question is two-fold. My ex-wife and I have only one child. Can this child still use the pool? Or do my ex-wife and I have to get together and have another child in order to get the ability to use the country-club pool? And secondly, my ex-wife is a single mom. Do I have to join the country club with a membership that I will never use in order to allow my child to use the pool? After all, the policy clearly states “parents”. My wife is a member, but she’s only one parent. Does this mean that I have to join in order for my child to use the pool?

I will ask Mario If he will permit me to post his information here – however I suspect that he would prefer that I didn’t do so. He doesn’t have a very high opinion of the folks here (and I am being very kind) and could care less what you think.

Additionally, I do not take kindly to being called a liar!

How do you feel about having your attorney called a liar?

Once upon a time Mario was perpetuating the lie that there was a ban on Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981. When he was confronted on this blog with irrefutable proof that there has never been a ban on Americans traveling to Pakistan, he refused to acknowledge that he was wrong. In fact, he then laughably claimed that it was a “de facto” ban, even though he had been shown contemporary newspaper stories about the relative ease of traveling to Pakistan from the United States.

When you have a few minutes, you might want to read up on Mario’s record as a “Constitutional” attorney:

Rickey: In fact, he then laughably claimed that it was a “de facto” ban, even though he had been shown contemporary newspaper stories about the relative ease of traveling to Pakistan from the United States.

And when pushed even further he tried to claim he never claimed there was an actual ban.

We know that George Washington was considered to have been resident in the United States in 1775. It is absurd to assume that his residency dates from any other time than his birth since we know that, Constitutionally speaking, he was resident in the US before it existed and birth is when that residency started. Therefore it is reasonable to think that George Washington was considered to be a citizen before the country was established—in particular that he (and the rest of the Founders) would have considered himself a natural born citizen of the US and thus eligible for the presidency without the grandfather clause. Some commenters here have actually dug up state case law in support of this theory and a discussion of the matter can be found here.

None of the birther theories of citizenship agree with the known facts nearly as well as the idea that the meaning of the term “natural born” never changed and the subjects of the 13 Colonies became citizens of the several states and the United States but remained natural born or naturalized.

Would you really go up to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and tell them that they weren’t natural born citizens of the State of Virginia and the United States? I suspect that if someone had done something like that at the time they may have ended up in a duel…

H. Brooke Paige: Absolutely, I have only said that there were no “natural born Citizen”s of sufficient age (3% years) to be qualified. – I just found where stated earlier that:

H. Brooke Paige – March 9, 2014 at 9:54 am(Quote)#

“CITIZENSHIP,

You are correct (and I thought I said, at one point in all of this) that citizenship, in the Revolutionary era was acquired by the citizens themselves by rejecting their subjecthood, supporting the revolution, the “Declaration”, the first republic design of the “Articles”, you are certainly correct that for those who immediately embraced these elements (or claimed to have done so) of “citizenship” could trace their commitment back to July 4th, 1776 (and for some April 18, 1775.) and therefore it was not problematic for Senators and Members of the House to meet the citizenship requirements.”

I am divorced from my wife, who lives across the country from me.She is a single mother, who I send child support from.We are legally divorced, so we are not considered part of the same family at all.We have one child.My wife belongs to the country club near her house.

Now, here comes the problem.The country club clearly says that “only children of members may use the pool.”I want my child to be able to use the pool.Now, it clearly says, “children” and it clearly says “members”.So, my question is two-fold.My ex-wife and I have only one child.Can this child still use the pool?Or do my ex-wife and I have to get together and have another child in order to get the ability to use the country-club pool?And secondly, my ex-wife is a single mom.Do I have to join the country club with a membership that I will never use in order to allow my child to use the pool?After all, the policy clearly states “parents”.My wife is a member, but she’s only one parent.Does this mean that I have to join in order for my child to use the pool?

To perfect your beautiful example and parallel Vattel to a T, the sign should resad:

“only children of members may use the pool with signed permission slips requested.
A Father’s signed permission slip will be required.”

The second line (sexist by today’s standards) would nevertheless cancel the notion that both parents should sign the permission slip.

Welcome

Obama Conspiracy Theories since 2008 has been your des­tination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argu­ment with your buddies at the office? You're in the right place. Use the Search box below or check out our featured articles. If you don't agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 250,000 comments others have left. To leave a comment not on the current articles, visit the Open Thread.

Quote of the day

Conspiracies

Conspiracies

Sometimes people leave comments designed to offend or outrage the reader, and invoke a firestorm of protest in response. These are the Internet trolls. Replying to them is feeding them and they will come back for more. Refusing to play their game encourages them to go away.